Mendez v. Ann Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-10623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mendez v. Ann Inc., Judge Liman ordered an update on bankruptcy status and outlined possible next steps after Calcano.
Himelda Mendez, the proposed class, and Ann Inc.
What happened
Mendez v. Ann Inc. was stayed while the Second Circuit considered related cases involving whether similar store-access claims adequately alleged standing, meaning a plaintiff’s legal ability to bring a case. Ann Inc. had also notified the court of a bankruptcy proceeding.
After the Second Circuit issued its decision in Calcano, holding that conclusory statements about intending to return to stores did not sufficiently allege standing, the court ordered Ann Inc. to report on the bankruptcy within 14 days. The order did not decide whether Mendez had standing or whether her claims could proceed.
Judge Liman stated that, depending on the bankruptcy update, the stay could be lifted and Mendez could amend her complaint or stand on it. Ann Inc. could then respond by moving against an amended complaint, answering, or indicating whether it would renew its earlier motion to dismiss, which had been denied without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. Ann Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10623
- Lewis Liman
- July 18, 2022
Background
Himelda Mendez brought this proposed class action against Ann Inc., doing business as LOFT. The court had stayed the case while the Second Circuit considered appeals involving the same issues and arguments. Before the stay, Ann Inc. had filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of standing. No answer had been filed. Ann Inc. later filed a notice concerning a bankruptcy proceeding.
Second Circuit decision
On June 2, 2022, the Second Circuit decided the consolidated appeal in Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd. The Second Circuit held that plaintiffs’ conclusory statements that they intended to return to the defendants’ stores were insufficient to allege standing. The mandate from that decision had issued by the time of this order.
Court’s order
The court ordered Ann Inc. to file, within 14 days, an update about the status of the bankruptcy proceeding and whether the case should remain stayed. If Ann Inc. stated that another stay was not appropriate, the court would lift the stay. Mendez would then have 30 days to tell the court whether she intended to amend her complaint in light of Calcano or would stand on her original complaint. If she chose to amend, she would have 14 days after notifying the court to do so. Ann Inc. could then either move against the amended complaint or answer.
If Mendez did not amend, Ann Inc. would have to state within the specified 14-day period whether it wished to renew the motion to dismiss that had previously been denied without prejudice or answer. This order did not itself resolve the standing or failure-to-state-a-claim issues.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.