Valdez v. Lau
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-09150
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Valdez v. Singlee Lau, Inc.: Judge Subramanian denied defendants’ motion as moot after Valdez filed an amended complaint.
Elizabeth Valdez and defendants Singlee Lau, Inc., and La Nueva Victoria, Inc.; the court’s order terminated the original motion after Valdez filed an amended complaint.
What happened
In Elizabeth Valdez v. Singlee Lau, Inc., defendants Singlee Lau, Inc., and La Nueva Victoria, Inc. asked the court to dismiss Valdez’s complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The motion argued that Valdez lacked standing and had not stated a claim for relief under that law. The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations or decide whether those arguments were correct.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion as moot because Valdez had filed an amended complaint and defendants had moved to dismiss that complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the original motion.
The detailed version
- Valdez v. Lau · No. 1:24-cv-09150
- Subramanian
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
Defendants Singlee Lau, Inc., and La Nueva Victoria, Inc. filed a motion concerning Elizabeth Valdez’s complaint. The motion sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Valdez lacked standing to bring a private claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
Ruling
The court denied the motion as moot because Valdez had filed an amended complaint, identified as Docket No. 27, and defendants had moved to dismiss that amended complaint, identified as Docket No. 29. The court did not decide the motion’s standing or failure-to-state-a-claim arguments. The clerk was directed to terminate the original motion at ECF No. 22.
Effect
This order resolved the original motion only. The opinion does not state the outcome of defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.