Range, Jr. v. Grand Greene LLC

Background

King Range, Jr., who uses a wheelchair, sued Grand Greene LLC and Fjällräven USA LLC over alleged access barriers at a Fjällräven retail clothing store at 38 Greene Street in New York. Grand Greene owns the building and real property, while Fjällräven USA operates the store and leases the retail space from Grand Greene. Range alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violations of state law. He sought, among other relief, damages, monetary penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and court orders requiring changes to the premises.

Range alleged that steps at the store’s public entrances prevented him from entering. He also identified up to 28 barriers, including the absence of an accessible route from the street and sidewalk to the entrances and emergency exit, missing signage identifying an accessible entrance, and a lack of handrails alongside the stairs. Range alleged that he had tried or wanted to access the store during June 2022, July 2022, October 2023, and March 2024, and that the barriers deterred him from visiting.

Range also alleged that he likes clothing and Fjällräven’s style, visits SoHo to shop at least six times a year, and became interested in the store through its display windows and website. He alleged that he intended to visit the store one or more times each year after it became fully accessible. Range voluntarily dismissed Fjällräven USA from his claims without prejudice, but Fjällräven USA remained in the action concerning Grand Greene’s crossclaims against it.

Grand Greene’s Motions

Grand Greene moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. Grand Greene argued that Range lacked Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a personal injury that the court can likely address—to pursue his Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The motion focused especially on whether Range had adequately alleged that he intended to return to the store.

The court treated the factual allegations in the amended complaint as true for purposes of the motion and drew reasonable inferences in Range’s favor. The court explained that a plaintiff seeking an injunction under Title III must show a past injury, a reasonable basis to infer that the discriminatory condition will continue, and a reasonable basis to infer an intent to return.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Range adequately alleged a past injury because he claimed that structural barriers, principally the entrance steps, deterred him from entering the store. The court also held that Range could challenge all 28 alleged barriers affecting his disability because, under Second Circuit precedent, establishing standing as to one barrier at a public accommodation can permit challenges to other barriers on the premises that the plaintiff would likely encounter.

The court further found that Range adequately alleged continuing discriminatory treatment because the complaint stated that the accessibility barriers had not been removed. The central issue was intent to return. The court rejected the argument that geographic proximity or past visit frequency was a strict threshold requirement, explaining that intent to return depends on the totality of the facts.

The court concluded that Range’s allegations were specific and plausible. Those allegations included his four identified attempts to access the store, his visits to SoHo at least six times a year, his interest in clothing and Fjällräven’s products, his interest prompted by the store’s windows and website, and his stated intention to return after the store became accessible. The court also rejected Grand Greene’s comparison to cases involving generic or copied allegations because Range pleaded facts specific to the Fjällräven store.

Disposition

The court held that Range adequately pleaded Article III standing to pursue his Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Grand Greene’s motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings. The ruling addressed standing only; it did not decide whether Grand Greene or Fjällräven USA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or state law.