Valdez v. Lau

Background

Elizabeth Valdez sued landlord Singlee Lau, Inc. and tenant restaurant La Nueva Victoria, Inc. Valdez alleged that she is a wheelchair user who visits the restaurant at least monthly when visiting friends and family on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. She alleged that two entry steps prevent her from entering independently and that she instead must wait for assistance to use a portable ramp or enter through the restaurant’s rear kitchen. She also alleged that the restaurant’s entryway, dining surfaces, and exits create difficulty, indignity, and safety risks, and that these barriers deter her from visiting more often.

Valdez alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). She also sought statutory damages under the New York State Civil Rights Law (NYSCRL). Her requested relief included an injunction requiring the defendants to stop offering dining and takeout services until the alleged violations were remedied, as well as compensatory damages, punitive damages, other monetary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Singlee Lau and La Nueva Victoria moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied that motion.

Standing

Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a personal stake in the dispute. In an ADA access case, the court applied a three-part test: the plaintiff must allege a past injury, a reasonable likelihood that the discriminatory condition will continue, and a plausible intent to return to the location.

The court held that Valdez adequately alleged past injury in two ways. First, she alleged that the barriers made access more difficult, burdensome, or dangerous than it would be for people without disabilities. Second, she alleged that the barriers deterred her from dining at La Nueva Victoria more frequently. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Valdez had no injury because she could enter using a portable ramp or the rear service entrance.

The court also found it reasonable to infer that the barriers would continue. Valdez alleged that she had encountered the same barriers on multiple visits over the previous three years, and the defendants did not dispute that the barriers remained unchanged. Finally, the court found that Valdez plausibly intended to return. It relied on her specific allegations that she had visited the restaurant multiple times, visited the surrounding area at least monthly, enjoyed particular menu items, and would dine there more often if the access barriers were removed.

The defendants also argued that Valdez’s description of herself as an ADA “tester,” and her involvement in other ADA lawsuits, undermined standing. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the cases cited by the defendants were dismissed because the plaintiffs’ allegations were too vague or conclusory, not merely because they were ADA testers. The court found Valdez’s allegations more specific and held that her prior litigation did not show that she lacked a personal stake in this case.

Plausibility of the ADA Claim

To state an ADA discrimination claim, Valdez had to plausibly allege that she has a disability covered by the statute, that the defendants own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation, and that the defendants denied her a full and equal opportunity to enjoy the services offered there.

The court found those allegations sufficient. Valdez alleged that medical conditions limit her ability to walk, that Singlee Lau owns the property, and that La Nueva Victoria leases and operates the restaurant, which is open to the public. She also alleged that the defendants failed to remove architectural barriers even though installing a permanent ramp or wheelchair lift was readily achievable. Under the ADA, “readily achievable” means easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense.

The court noted that the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments were cursory and underdeveloped. Even so, the court stated that Valdez’s claims would survive dismissal for the reasons explained in the opinion. The court also accepted as sufficient Valdez’s allegation that she had provided the notice required to seek statutory damages under the NYSCRL.

Disposition

The court denied Singlee Lau and La Nueva Victoria’s motion to dismiss, identified in the conclusion as Docket 22. It denied Valdez’s motion to strike, Docket 39, as moot, and directed the clerk to terminate both motions. The ruling addressed standing and whether the pleaded claims were legally sufficient; it did not determine whether the defendants ultimately violated the ADA or the state and city laws.