Vuppala v. Kaishou Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-09208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vuppala v. Kaishou, Judge Torres set response and case-management deadlines while defendants sought permission to pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act dismissal motion.
Kiran Vuppala, Kaishou Inc., Vaishnoma LLC, and their counsel were affected by the deadlines for responding to the defendants’ pre-motion letter and filing a proposed case-management plan.
What happened
In Kiran Vuppala v. Kaishou, Inc., defendants asked the court for a conference before filing a motion to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act case. They argued that Vuppala had not shown a sufficient connection to the restaurant or a likely future injury.
The defense letter pointed to Vuppala’s alleged visit to the restaurant, his stated workplace, and his history of filing similar disability-access cases. It argued that the complaint did not adequately establish the legal requirement that Vuppala have standing to sue.
Judge Analisa Torres did not decide whether the case should be dismissed or whether Vuppala had standing. She ordered Vuppala to respond to the defendants’ letter by April 8, 2025, and ordered the parties to file their joint letter and proposed case-management plan by April 15, 2025.
The detailed version
- Vuppala v. Kaishou Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-09208
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 2, 2025
Background
The document is a letter from attorney Morton S. Minsley, who stated that he represented defendants Kaishou Inc. and Vaishnoma LLC. The letter concerned Vuppala’s lawsuit seeking injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The defendants requested a pre-motion conference—that is, a conference before filing a proposed motion to dismiss. They said the motion would rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and/or Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. The letter specifically argued that Vuppala lacked standing, meaning a sufficient personal connection to pursue the case in federal court.
Arguments in the Letter
The defendants asserted that Vuppala had filed at least 260 similar Americans with Disabilities Act cases in the Southern District of New York. They argued that the complaint used a repetitive format and did not allege enough facts showing that Vuppala had been injured by conditions at the restaurant involved in this case.
According to the letter, Vuppala alleged that he is disabled, works at 375 Pearl Street in New York, likes Asian-style restaurants, visited the defendants’ restaurant once on an unspecified date, and intended to return if accessibility barriers were removed. The defendants argued that the complaint did not provide enough information about Vuppala’s residence, proximity to the restaurant, prior visit, or future plans to establish standing. They relied principally on Second Circuit precedent concerning standing in Americans with Disabilities Act cases.
These were the defendants’ arguments. The opinion text does not state that Judge Torres accepted them.
Order
Judge Torres ordered Vuppala to respond to the defendants’ pre-motion letter by April 8, 2025. She also ordered the parties to file their joint letter and proposed case-management plan by April 15, 2025.
The text does not show that the court granted or denied the requested pre-motion conference, ruled on a motion to dismiss, decided standing, or reached the merits of Vuppala’s accessibility claims. The ruling shown is a procedural scheduling order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.