Nachshen v. WFP Retail Co. L.P.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:18-cv-10998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nachshen v. WFP Retail, Judge Woods deferred consideration of defendants’ proposed summary-judgment motion until the scheduled conference.
The order affected Nachshen and the defendants by postponing consideration of the defendants’ proposed summary-judgment motion until after the scheduled conference; the provided text does not clearly resolve the other requested relief.
What happened
Nachshen v. WFP Retail Co. L.P. concerns alleged accessibility violations at a restaurant under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants said later modifications had fixed the alleged problems and planned to argue that the case was moot, meaning no live dispute remained.
Nachshen asked to postpone the scheduled conference for 90 days and to allow a new inspection by his expert, along with possible depositions, so he could evaluate the modifications and respond to defendants’ proposed motion asking the court to rule without a trial. Defendants consented to the requested postponement and limited discovery.
The court did not decide the proposed motion or expressly rule in this order on each requested discovery step. Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered that the parties’ arguments would be addressed at the August 21, 2020 conference and deferred consideration of defendants’ proposed motion until after that conference.
The detailed version
- Nachshen v. WFP Retail Co. L.P. · No. 1:18-cv-10998
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 17, 2020
Background
The plaintiff alleged accessibility violations at defendants’ restaurant under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Defendants intended to seek summary judgment, a ruling without a trial, on the ground that later modifications to the restaurant had remedied the alleged violations and made the case moot.
The modifications occurred after discovery had closed and after the plaintiff’s expert had inspected the restaurant. Defendants relied on an inspection report dated July 30, 2020, which the plaintiff received on August 12, 2020. Defendants’ letter also stated that some violations had not been remediated because they were allegedly not readily achievable or technically infeasible.
Plaintiff’s request
The plaintiff asked the court to adjourn the August 21, 2020 pre-motion conference for 90 days. He also requested limited discovery concerning the modifications, including a site inspection by his expert and possible depositions of the experts. The plaintiff said this information was needed to determine whether the alleged violations remained and to respond to defendants’ anticipated summary-judgment arguments. The defendants consented to the requested adjournment and limited discovery described in the letter.
Order
The court ordered that it would take up the arguments in the letter at the conference scheduled for August 21, 2020. It also deferred consideration of defendants’ proposed summary-judgment motion until after that conference.
The text provided does not expressly state that the court granted or denied the requested 90-day adjournment, site inspection, or depositions. It also does not decide whether the case was moot, whether the modifications remedied the alleged violations, or whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.