Sutton v. 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd.
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-00090
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sutton v. 626 Emmut Properties, Judge Oetken denied defendants’ second summary-judgment motion on Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility claims.
Stason Sutton, 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd., and 10th Avenue Group, Inc.; the order also addressed the parties’ requests concerning fees, costs, sanctions, and a conference.
What happened
In Sutton v. 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd., Stason Sutton claimed that 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd. and 10th Avenue Group, Inc. operated or leased a restaurant that was physically inaccessible to wheelchair users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The defendants again argued that voluntary changes to the property had resolved the claims. They also asked the court to limit any attorney’s fee and cost award to $9,500. The court had previously rejected the same compliance argument and ruled that the case was not moot.
Judge Oetken denied the defendants’ second motion for summary judgment, finding no new facts or law that justified changing the earlier ruling. He also found the request for an early decision about fees and costs untimely; Sutton’s request for sanctions was denied, and his request for a conference was denied as moot.
The detailed version
- Sutton v. 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd. · No. 1:18-cv-00090
- James Oetken
- Apr. 7, 2020
Background
Stason Sutton sued 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd. and 10th Avenue Group, Inc. Sutton alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by operating or leasing property to a restaurant that was physically inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs.
On August 2, 2019, the court denied the defendants’ first motion for summary judgment. In a later order, the court considered whether voluntary remedial measures taken by the defendants had made the case moot, meaning that no live dispute remained. The court concluded that the case was not moot.
Second Summary-Judgment Motion
The defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment. They made the same argument as before: that their voluntary remedial measures brought them into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and therefore resolved or mooted Sutton’s claims. The defendants also asked the court to limit any award of attorney’s fees and costs to $9,500.
The court characterized the motion as an attempt to seek reconsideration of its earlier ruling. It explained that reconsideration is appropriate only when there has been a change in controlling law, new evidence is available, or correction is needed to address a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The defendants presented no new facts or law supporting a different result.
Rulings
The court again denied summary judgment on the Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The order states: “Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED.” The court also determined that the defendants’ request for an early decision about the proper award of fees and costs was untimely.
The order directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Docket Numbers 83, 84, 88, and 89. In a footnote, the court denied Sutton’s request for sanctions based on the defendants’ filing, which Sutton called a false document. The court found that the filing was merely mislabeled. Sutton’s request for a conference about that filing was denied as moot.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.