Abadi v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.et al
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-01766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Abadi v. The Walt Disney Company, Judge Failla ordered service on two defendants but dismissed claims against the others, allowing amendment.
Aaron Abadi may continue the case against The Walt Disney Company and Jared Fields, who were to be served through the U.S. Marshals Service. The claims against the other named and unnamed defendants were dismissed without prejudice to amendment.
What happened
In Abadi v. The Walt Disney Company, Aaron Abadi, representing himself, sued Disney-related companies, employees, attorneys, and others under disability-discrimination, civil-rights, and state antidiscrimination laws.
The court found that Abadi alleged virtually no facts about the defendants other than The Walt Disney Company and Jared Fields. It therefore directed service of the complaint on those two defendants through the U.S. Marshals Service.
Judge Failla dismissed the claims against the other defendants without prejudice to Abadi amending those claims. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal, after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Abadi v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.et al · No. 1:22-cv-01766
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Aaron Abadi, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and California and Florida antidiscrimination laws. He named The Walt Disney Company, Disney Parks and Experiences Worldwide Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Robert Chapek, Jared Fields, Kerry Alan Scanlon, Audrey Pumariega Angulo, Margaret C. Giacalone, Julie H. McConnell, and unnamed executives, employees, staff, and attorneys as defendants.
The court had previously allowed Abadi to proceed without prepaying filing fees. When a person proceeds this way, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, the complaint still must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible under the federal pleading rules.
Service on Two Defendants
The court directed service on The Walt Disney Company and Jared Fields. Because Abadi was proceeding without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses were issued for them and instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare the summonses and service forms.
Claims Against the Other Defendants
The court dismissed Abadi’s claims against the defendants other than The Walt Disney Company and Fields because he alleged virtually no facts about those defendants. The dismissal was without prejudice to Abadi amending his complaint as to those dismissed claims.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on The Walt Disney Company and Fields. It dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants without prejudice to amendment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Abadi permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.