Nachshen v. 53-55 West 21ST Owner LLC

Background

Steven Nachshen sued 53-55 West 21st Owner LLC and New Lounge 4324, LLC, alleging that they operated Bounce Sporting Club in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He also asserted claims under New York State Executive Law § 296, New York State Civil Rights Law § 40, the New York City Administrative Code, and state law theories of negligence. Nachshen died in January 2021, after the parties had participated in mediation, discovery, and a settlement conference.

After his death, Nachshen’s counsel moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) to substitute Louise Nachshen, in her capacity as administrator of his estate, as plaintiff. The defendants opposed substitution and moved under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, to dismiss the complaint. Counsel for Nachshen did not oppose dismissal of the ADA claim but opposed dismissal of the state-law claims.

ADA Claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA claim. It explained that federal courts may decide only live cases or controversies. Under Title III of the ADA, a private individual may obtain injunctive relief—an order requiring a defendant to stop or correct a violation—but may not recover damages. The court concluded, consistent with the parties’ agreement, that Nachshen’s death made his request for injunctive relief moot. Because no live controversy remained, the court held that it lacked constitutional power to consider the ADA claim.

Substitution

The court denied the motion to substitute Louise Nachshen. Rule 25(a)(1) requires, among other things, that the claims survive the original plaintiff’s death and that the proposed substitute be a proper party. Because the ADA claim did not survive Nachshen’s death, Louise Nachshen could not be substituted as plaintiff for that federal claim. The court noted that counsel’s asserted interest in damages and attorney’s fees concerned the state-law claims, not the ADA claim.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over the remaining state-law claims. It relied on the general principle that courts ordinarily decline to retain state-law claims after all federal claims have been eliminated before trial, and it stated that retaining those claims would be clearly inappropriate when the federal claim was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that Louise Nachshen may refile those claims in state court. The court denied the motion to substitute, granted the motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.