Wimberly v. Atlantic Dialysis Management Services, LLC
1:24-cv-09269
S.D.N.Y.Jun 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jason Wimberly, proceeding pro se, brought claims against Atlantic Dialysis Management Services, LLC ("Atlantic") alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.
- The underlying dispute concerned Atlantic's policy prohibiting patients from rescheduling more than one dialysis appointment per week.
- The court previously granted Atlantic's motion to dismiss Wimberly’s complaint.
- Wimberly moved for reconsideration of the dismissal and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent enforcement of the rescheduling policy, arguing both discrimination and retaliation.
- Atlantic conceded the existence of the policy but denied any violation of law or retaliatory motive.
- Wimberly also moved to seal certain medical records, which the court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration of Dismissal | Court misapplied ADA/Rehab Act standards | No new law or evidence; reiterates earlier arguments | Denied—no new evidence, law, or clear error shown |
| TRO re: Rescheduling Policy | Policy discriminates/retaliates under ADA/Rehab Act, etc. | Policy is lawful, not discriminatory, not retaliatory | Denied—not likely to succeed, no irreparable harm shown |
| Disability Accommodation under Federal Law | Policy fails to reasonably accommodate his disability | Policy is general, applies equally, not discriminatory | Denied—speculative need, no clear legal violation |
| Retaliation for Prior Lawsuit | Policy timing shows retaliation for protected activity | Applies to all, not targeted at plaintiff | Denied—no plausible claim of retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (explains high standard for reconsideration)
- Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (outlines grounds for reconsideration)
- Mary Jo C. v. N.Y. State & Loc. Ret. Sys., 707 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013) (ADA Titles II and III accommodation requirements are identical)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing demands actual or imminent injury)
- Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (past harm does not justify injunctive relief if not ongoing)