Calcano v. Tumi, Inc

Background

Evelina Calcano sued Tumi, Inc. on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. She 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 Calcano and other visually impaired plaintiffs had filed substantially identical cases against stores and restaurants alleging that they did not carry braille gift cards.

Tumi moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the alleged harm to invoke the federal court’s jurisdiction. At the parties’ request, the court administratively terminated the motion and stayed the case while the Second Circuit considered appeals from dismissals of five similar cases.

Court’s Analysis

On June 2, 2022, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals in the related cases. It held that the “conclusory, boilerplate allegations” in the “nearly identical complaints” did not establish standing. The district court found that Calcano’s First Amended Complaint was substantially identical to those complaints.

The court also explained that it had an independent obligation to examine its subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear the case. Because the pleading did not establish standing, the court concluded that it lacked that jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. Calcano may file a second amended complaint within fifteen days. The order states that, if she does not timely file one, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.