Tucker v. Ulta Beauty, Inc.

Background

Henry Tucker sued Ulta Beauty, Inc. under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which addresses accessibility in places of public accommodation. The parties submitted a joint letter concerning a recent Second Circuit decision in consolidated appeals. The majority in that decision affirmed dismissals because the plaintiffs lacked standing, while a concurring opinion concluded that the claims also failed to state a claim for relief. The opinion states that the Second Circuit decision did not address the merits beyond standing.

The parties’ positions

Tucker asked for permission to file another amended complaint within 30 days. He said the new pleading would include factual representations addressing the standing requirements described in the Second Circuit’s decision. Tucker also argued that amendment would not prejudice Ulta.

Ulta opposed amendment. It argued that its pending motion to dismiss addressed both standing and the merits, that amendment would be futile, and that Tucker had already had multiple opportunities to amend. Ulta also argued that another amendment would cause delay and prejudice because the motion to dismiss was nearly fully briefed.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Tucker’s application and denied Ulta’s application. The court denied the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, docket number 41, as moot because the court granted Tucker leave to file an amended complaint. The court directed Tucker to file the amended complaint by August 18, 2022. Within three weeks after that filing, Ulta was directed to answer the complaint or propose a schedule for briefing another motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 41.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on permission to amend and treated the pending dismissal motion as moot; it did not decide whether Tucker’s underlying claims succeeded.