Contreras v. The Winston Box, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-00456
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Contreras v. The Winston Box, Judge Cronan ordered supplemental briefing on whether the plaintiff adequately alleged standing under the disability law.
Yensy Contreras and The Winston Box, LLC, who were required to file supplemental briefs on the standing issue.
What happened
In Contreras v. The Winston Box, LLC, The Winston Box moved to dismiss Yensy Contreras’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns federal jurisdiction. The parties’ briefs addressed whether Contreras properly alleged standing under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court asked the parties to explain whether a recent Second Circuit decision, Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd., affected their arguments about standing. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or determine whether Contreras had standing.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered both parties to file supplemental briefs by June 20, 2022. The order therefore required additional briefing rather than granting or denying the motion.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. The Winston Box, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00456
- John Cronan
- June 13, 2022
Background
The Winston Box, LLC moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The opinion states that Yensy Contreras opposed the motion and that The Winston Box filed a reply.
Issue Identified by the Court
The parties’ briefing addressed whether Contreras properly alleged Article III standing under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Article III standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient connection to an alleged injury for a federal court to hear the case. The court directed the parties to address what effect, if any, the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. had on their arguments.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing by June 20, 2022. The opinion does not grant or deny the Rule 12(b)(1) motion and does not resolve whether Contreras adequately alleged standing.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.