Gannon v. 31 Essex Street LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-01134
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gannon v. 31 Essex Street LLC, Judge Ramos’s filing records motions to combine three actions and dismiss Americans with Disabilities Act complaints; no ruling appears.
The filing concerns Stephen Gannon and the defendants in three related actions: 31 Essex Street, LLC; Yan Ping Association, Inc.; and Hun Shing Corp.
What happened
Stephen Gannon brought three actions against different defendants, including 31 Essex Street, LLC, Yan Ping Association, Inc., and Hun Shing Corp., asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of himself and similarly situated people.
The defendants’ notice says they will ask the court to combine the actions for a joint hearing about whether Gannon pleaded enough facts to establish standing, or a legal basis to bring the claims. They also seek dismissal of the complaints for failure to state a legally valid claim.
The filing is dated May 10, 2022, and identifies Judge Edgardo Ramos. The supplied text does not state how the court ruled on the motions.
The detailed version
- Gannon v. 31 Essex Street LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01134
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 10, 2022
What the document is
The supplied document is a notice of motion filed for defendants in three related actions. It is not a decision explaining whether the court granted or denied the requested relief. The first action is docketed as No. 1:22-cv-01134 (ER), the second as No. 1:22-cv-1675 (GHW-JLC), and the third as No. 1:22-cv-1681 (RA).
The parties and claims
Stephen Gannon is identified as the plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The defendants represented by the filing are 31 Essex Street, LLC, in the first action; Yan Ping Association, Inc., in the second action; and Hun Shing Corp., in the third action. The notice refers to private claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and following provisions.
The requested motions
The defendants state that they will ask under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(1) to consolidate the three actions for a joint hearing on whether Gannon alleges sufficient facts to establish standing. Standing means having the legally required connection to bring a claim in court. The notice says the issue will be considered under the pleading standards discussed in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
The defendants also state that they will move under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The filing relies on a declaration by Morton S. Minsley, pleadings, exhibits, and a supporting memorandum of law.
Disposition
The document begins with “It is SO ORDERED,” but the supplied text does not identify an order granting, denying, or otherwise deciding the motions. Accordingly, no specific motion disposition can be stated from this text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.