Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 23, 2020

Perez, Jr. v. 33rd Street Investors I LLC.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:19-cv-01392
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ADA / DisabilityCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Perez v. 33rd Street Investors, Judge Carter dismissed the moot ADA case without prejudice after Wattle Café closed and declined state-law claims.

Who this affects

Jose Mario Perez, Jr.’s federal accessibility claim was dismissed as moot, and the court declined to decide his state and local claims. The dismissal was without prejudice, and each party was responsible for its own costs.

What happened

Jose Mario Perez, Jr. v. 33rd Street Investors I LLC involved claims that Wattle Café LLC and its landlord operated a public place that was not wheelchair accessible, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state and local laws.

The restaurant provided sworn evidence that it had permanently stopped operating, ended its lease, left the premises, and had no plans to reopen there. The court concluded that the federal claim was moot because there was no longer a live dispute.

Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice, declined to decide the state and local claims, and ordered each party to pay its own costs.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Perez, Jr. v. 33rd Street Investors I LLC. · No. 1:19-cv-01392
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Dec. 23, 2020

Background

Jose Mario Perez, Jr. sued Wattle Café LLC, described as the tenant restaurant, and 33rd Street Investors I LLC, described as the landlord. He alleged that they operated a place of public accommodation that discriminated against him by failing to make the restaurant wheelchair accessible. The claims arose under the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state and local law.

Mootness

The restaurant asked the court to dismiss the case as moot because it had permanently closed, vacated the premises, and stopped operating. Perez initially opposed the request because he believed the restaurant had not provided enough proof of permanent closure. After the court directed additional evidence, the restaurant’s principal submitted a sworn affidavit stating that the restaurant had ceased operations, no longer held a lease for the premises, and had no plans to reopen there. Perez later stated that he took no position on whether the case should be dismissed as moot.

The court found that this evidence was unrebutted. Because the restaurant had stopped operating, terminated its lease, vacated the premises, and had no plans to return, the court concluded that there was no longer a live federal case or controversy. It therefore held that the federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim was moot and subject to dismissal.

State and Local Claims

After the federal claim was dismissed as moot, no federal claim remained. Because the case was at an early stage, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it declined to decide the remaining state and local claims in federal court.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. ordered that the case be DISMISSED without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and the clerk was asked to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.