Girotto v. LXC Inc.

Background

Luigi Girotto sued LXC Inc. and 162 West Realty LLC under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that he uses a wheelchair and that architectural barriers at the defendants’ property prevented him from having full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its facilities.

Girotto alleged that he attempted to visit the property on or about March 21, 2019, but could not use its facilities because of several barriers: a step and no compliant ramp at the entrance, an inaccessible exit, dining and ordering counters above specified height limits, and refrigerated merchandise beyond accessible reach. He also alleged that additional violations might be found through a full inspection. He stated that he intended to return promptly once the property became accessible.

LXC Inc. moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Girotto lacked standing, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that he had not stated a legally sufficient claim. The opinion identifies LXC Inc. as the moving defendant; 162 West Realty LLC was also a defendant in the action.

Standing

The court treated the standing challenge as one under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Girotto sought injunctive relief, he had to allege both a past injury and a real and immediate threat of future injury.

The court concluded that Girotto adequately alleged standing. His allegation that he attempted to visit the property was plausible, and a statement from LXC Inc.’s president that he and his employees did not recall seeing Girotto did not meaningfully contradict that allegation at this stage. The court also found that Girotto’s statement that he would promptly return once the property was accessible, together with his assertion that his workplace was 1.8 miles away, supported an inference that he intended to return.

The court therefore denied LXC Inc.’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).

Failure to State a Claim

Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court had to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true, draw reasonable inferences for Girotto, and decide whether the amended complaint plausibly stated a claim. The court would not resolve factual disputes by considering outside evidence at this stage.

For a Title III disability-access claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege that he has a disability, that the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation, and that the defendant denied him a full and equal opportunity to use its services. The court found that Girotto had adequately pleaded those elements.

LXC Inc. disputed Girotto’s allegations about the ramp, counters, and other conditions and offered evidence concerning the property. The court held that those factual disputes could not defeat the amended complaint on a motion to dismiss. The court also rejected LXC Inc.’s argument that Girotto had to establish at the pleading stage that removing the barriers was readily achievable. The court stated that this issue could arise later, but the cited authorities did not impose that requirement before discovery.

The court separately rejected dismissal based on the possibility that the claim concerning refrigerated merchandise had become moot. LXC Inc. stated that it would remove beverages from the top two shelves, but the court held that a promise of future action, without more, was insufficient to moot the claim.

The court therefore denied LXC Inc.’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The conclusion states that LXC Inc.’s motion to dismiss was DENIED. The court directed LXC Inc. to file a responsive pleading by July 9, 2020, and directed all parties to submit a proposed case-management plan and joint status letter by July 16, 2020.