Vuppala v. Kaishou Inc.
1:24-cv-09208
| S.D.N.Y. | Apr 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiff brought an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against a Japanese restaurant in Manhattan, alleging lack of accessibility.
- The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, challenging the plaintiff's standing to sue under the ADA.
- Defendant argued that the plaintiff's complaint did not plausibly allege any history of past visits, proximity to the restaurant, or actual intent to return.
- Plaintiff's complaint used boilerplate language and did not include distinct facts showing a threat of future injury or real intent to visit the business.
- Defendant requested the court stay or adjourn the obligation to submit a joint case management plan pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.
- The court denied the application to stay or adjourn, ordering the parties to proceed with their obligations on schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under ADA | Standing is properly alleged; intends to prosecute case. | No plausible allegations of past visits, proximity, or intent to return; complaint uses mere boilerplate. | Court found defendant's argument persuasive but denied stay; case proceeds. |
| Requirement to file case management plan | Should not delay; wants timely prosecution. | Should adjourn pending resolution of dismissal motion. | Court denied delay; filing proceeds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2022) (explains the requirements for ADA standing, emphasizes the need for plausible factual allegations rather than boilerplate language)
- Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013) (sets out the test for ADA standing, including past injury, likelihood of future discrimination, and intent to return)