Tucker v. Hollister Co.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-10033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tucker v. Hollister Co., Judge Vyskocil dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of standing, allowing Tucker 15 days to amend.
Henry Tucker and the other proposed similarly situated plaintiffs; Hollister Co.
What happened
In Tucker v. Hollister Co., Henry Tucker sued Hollister Co. under federal, New York State, and New York City disability-rights laws, claiming the company failed to carry braille gift cards. He brought the case for himself and other people he said were similarly situated.
Hollister moved to dismiss, arguing that Tucker lacked standing to sue and had not stated a valid claim. The court paused the case while the Court of Appeals considered similar cases. After that court rejected nearly identical complaints for using insufficiently specific allegations, this court found that Tucker’s amended complaint was substantially the same.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of standing. Tucker may file a second amended complaint within 15 days; if he does not, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Tucker v. Hollister Co. · No. 1:19-cv-10033
- Vyskocil
- June 7, 2022
Background
Henry Tucker filed this putative class action against Hollister Co. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Tucker and other visually impaired plaintiffs filed substantially identical cases against stores and restaurants that allegedly did not carry braille gift cards.
Hollister moved to dismiss Tucker’s First Amended Complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court administratively terminated that motion and stayed the case while the Second Circuit considered appeals from dismissals in five similar cases.
Court’s Analysis
The Second Circuit affirmed those dismissals in Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. It held that conclusory, boilerplate allegations in nearly identical complaints did not establish standing. The court stated that Tucker’s First Amended Complaint was substantially identical to the complaints the Second Circuit had found insufficient.
Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a legally sufficient connection to the alleged injury that allows the court to hear the dispute. The court also explained that it has an independent duty to examine its subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its authority to decide the case, and must dismiss when that jurisdiction is lacking.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. The order permits Tucker to file a second amended complaint within 15 days. If he does not timely file one, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.