Nachshen v. Jem Real Estate Co., LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-10996
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nachshen v. Jem Real Estate Co., LLC, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the deceased plaintiff’s ADA claim as moot and sought briefing before deciding whether to dismiss state-law claims.
Steven Nachsen’s estate-related interests and the defendants were affected: the Title III ADA claim was dismissed, while the state-law claims remained subject to a later decision about supplemental jurisdiction.
What happened
In Nachshen v. Jem Real Estate Co., LLC, Steven Nachsen’s estate-related representative appointment was pending, and Nachsen sought to pause the case. The defendants opposed that request and asked the court to dismiss Nachsen’s federal disability-discrimination claim and decline to hear his state and city claims.
The court dismissed the claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because that law provides only court orders requiring future changes, and a deceased plaintiff cannot benefit from such relief. The court had not yet decided whether to keep or dismiss the remaining state-law claims; instead, it invited either side to submit a letter explaining why the federal court should continue hearing them.
Judge Engelmayer directed any such letter to be filed by June 7, 2021. The order does not state a ruling on Nachsen’s request to pause the proceedings.
The detailed version
- Nachshen v. Jem Real Estate Co., LLC · No. 1:18-cv-10996
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 17, 2021
Background
Steven Nachsen filed a second request to stay, or pause, the case while the New York Surrogate’s Court considered the appointment of Louise Nachshen as representative of his estate. Jem Real Estate Co., LLC and Caliente Cab Rest. Co., Inc. opposed the request. The defendants also moved to dismiss Nachsen’s Title III Americans with Disabilities Act claim as moot and asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and common-law negligence.
Ruling on the ADA Claim
The court dismissed Nachsen’s Title III ADA claim. It explained that Title III allows a private plaintiff to obtain only injunctive relief—an order requiring action to prevent or remedy an ongoing violation—not damages. Relying on decisions from courts in the Second Circuit, the court concluded that a deceased plaintiff cannot benefit from injunctive relief, so the ADA claim was moot.
Remaining Claims and Case Status
The court stated that it expected to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and city claims because the federal claim had been dismissed and the case had made limited progress. However, it did not yet rule that those claims were dismissed. Instead, it directed either party that believed the federal court should continue hearing them to file a letter explaining why, with supporting authority, by June 7, 2021.
The opinion text does not state a ruling on Nachsen’s second request to stay the proceedings.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.