Volfman v. Miss Du's Tea Shop Inc

Background

Joseph Volfman sued Miss Du’s Tea Shop Inc. and East Stone LLC. His complaint asserted disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

East Stone moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. East Stone argued that Volfman lacked Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury that a federal court can address. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses, who recommended denying it. East Stone objected to that recommendation.

Standing allegations

The court explained that, under Second Circuit precedent, a person with a disability seeking an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act can establish standing by plausibly alleging a past injury, a reasonable likelihood that the discriminatory condition will continue, and an intention to return to the business.

Volfman alleged that he has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. He alleged that on February 23, 2024, he tried but could not enter Miss Du’s because the main entrance had a significant step and no wheelchair ramp. He also alleged that he had no way to contact the inside of the premises for assistance and that the experience embarrassed him and made him feel discriminated against. The court held that these allegations plausibly described a concrete and particularized past injury because being deterred from accessing a facility can qualify as an injury under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court also found that Volfman plausibly alleged an intent to return. His complaint identified the specific drink he wanted to purchase—the Purple Taro Bubble Milk Tea—based on favorable online reviews. It alleged that the drink was distinctive and not widely available elsewhere. It also alleged that Volfman traveled to the downtown Manhattan area near Miss Du’s approximately three to five times each month for work. The court concluded that these allegations supported a real and immediate risk of future injury if the access barriers remained.

Objections and ruling

The court determined that East Stone’s objections largely repeated arguments made before Judge Moses. It therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record, and found none. The court added that East Stone would lose even under de novo review, which is an independent review of the disputed issues.

The court rejected East Stone’s argument that policy concerns justified denying jurisdiction. It stated that a court with jurisdiction must hear the matter and that concerns about the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act must be addressed by Congress rather than by declining to enforce the statute.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied East Stone’s motion to dismiss. The court directed the parties to contact Judge Moses’s chambers to schedule an initial pretrial conference and directed the Clerk to close the motion pending at docket 27.