Tavarez v. Moo Organic Chocolates, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-09816
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tavarez v. MOO Organic Chocolates, Judge Caproni granted leave to amend and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot.
The plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint by June 29, 2022. MOO Organic Chocolates, LLC’s pending motion to dismiss was denied as moot and closed.
What happened
In Tavarez v. MOO Organic Chocolates, LLC, the plaintiff asked for more time to file an amended complaint after the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The defendant opposed the request and argued that the proposed amendment would not fix its objections to the plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act claims.
The defendant argued that its website was not a place of public accommodation and that the plaintiff had not adequately alleged a concrete injury or a real and immediate threat of future injury. The defendant also argued that allowing an amendment would impose significant costs on the company.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint and required the plaintiff to file it by June 29, 2022. Because the amended complaint would replace the existing pleading, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to close that motion.
The detailed version
- Tavarez v. Moo Organic Chocolates, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09816
- Valerie Caproni
- June 28, 2022
Background
The plaintiff requested permission to file an amended complaint after MOO Organic Chocolates, LLC filed a motion to dismiss. The defendant opposed the request, asserting that the proposed amendment would remain legally insufficient under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendant argued that its website was not a place of public accommodation, that the plaintiff had not alleged the required concrete injury, and that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged a real and immediate threat of future injury.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint. Although the deadline to amend as of right had passed, the court found that the delay was not prejudicial to the defendant. The court required the plaintiff to file the amended complaint on the docket no later than June 29, 2022.
In light of the amended complaint, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion at Docket 22. The order did not decide whether the plaintiff’s amended claims would succeed or whether the defendant’s arguments about the Americans with Disabilities Act were correct.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.