Harty v. Koutsourades

Background

Owen Harty sued Christy Koutsourades and Helen Koutsourades, alleging that online reservation systems for the West Point Motel did not comply with a federal regulation requiring lodging businesses to provide accessible-room information and reservation options. Harty sought injunctive relief, monetary damages under the New York State Human Rights Law, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

The defendants did not answer or otherwise respond. The Clerk entered certificates of default, and Harty moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. The court issued an order directing the defendants to explain why default judgment should not be entered, but they did not respond.

Standing and jurisdiction

The court explained that a default does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to judgment. Before entering default judgment, the court must determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

For federal-court standing, a plaintiff must show a concrete and personal injury that was caused by the defendant and could be addressed by a favorable court decision. A plaintiff seeking an injunction must also show a real and immediate threat of future injury, not a merely possible or hypothetical harm.

Harty alleged that he had visited the reservation websites to test their compliance with disability-access requirements and intended to revisit them in the near future. The court found these allegations vague and conclusory. Harty’s status as a tester, by itself, did not establish standing. The complaint also did not provide facts showing that he intended to return to the websites or planned to stay at the motel.

The court considered additional facts in Harty’s affidavit, including his statements that he had family in the Nyack and Newburgh areas, had visited those areas many times, planned to return after the COVID-19 crisis, and needed accessible hotel information. Even considering those facts, the court found no real and immediate threat of future harm. Among other things, Harty had not checked whether the alleged website problems had been corrected before filing his affidavit, and he did not explain the motel’s location in relation to the Nyack and Newburgh areas or allege that he had stayed in Highland Falls before.

The court concluded that Harty had alleged only a bare violation of an accessibility requirement, rather than concrete harm. It therefore held that he lacked standing to assert the Americans with Disabilities Act claim and that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.

Disposition

The court denied Harty’s motion for default judgment. It dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim without prejudice for lack of standing. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Harty’s New York State Human Rights Law claim because the federal claim could not remain in federal court. The court also determined that allowing amendment was not warranted under the circumstances. The action was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to terminate it.

Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the memorandum opinion and order on April 7, 2021.