Volman v. Santa Clarita Restaurant Corp.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-04742
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Volman v. Santa Clarita Restaurant Corp., Judge Torres denied default judgment because the complaint did not identify the defendants’ public business.
The ruling affects Josef Volman’s disability-access claims against Santa Clarita Restaurant Corp. and 237 Willis Avenue Realty LLC. The court denied default judgment because the allegations did not adequately identify a public accommodation or the defendants’ public-facing business or services, while allowing Volman to request permission to amend.
What happened
Josef Volman sued Santa Clarita Restaurant Corp. and 237 Willis Avenue Realty LLC under federal, state, and city disability-rights laws. He alleged that barriers at the defendants’ property prevented or restricted his wheelchair access, and the defendants did not appear in the case.
The court said that a default does not automatically establish legal responsibility. Although Volman’s factual allegations were accepted as true for this motion, he still had to show that the defendants operated or provided a place of public accommodation. The court found that his allegations about the defendants’ business were too general and did not explain what kind of business they operated or what services they offered to the public.
Judge Analisa Torres denied Volman’s motion for default judgment. The court allowed him to request permission within 21 days to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies and to serve that request on the defendants.
The detailed version
- Volman v. Santa Clarita Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-04742
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 7, 2022
Background
Josef Volman brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that the defendants failed to make their property accessible to people with disabilities because architectural barriers prevented or restricted his access. Volman alleged that he uses a wheelchair because he was born with spastic diplegia cerebral palsy, had tried to access the property within three years before filing the complaint, and intended to return.
The defendants failed to appear in the case. Volman therefore moved for default judgment, which is a judgment requested against a party that has not defended the lawsuit.
Legal standard
The court explained that default requires the court to accept the non-defaulting party’s factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. But a defaulting party does not admit legal conclusions. The court still must decide whether the allegations establish legal liability.
Analysis
For the federal disability claim, Volman had to allege that he had a disability covered by the ADA, that the defendants owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation, and that they discriminated against him within the meaning of the ADA. The court noted that the state disability-discrimination claim generally uses the same legal standards as the ADA claim. It also explained that the city law requires a defendant to be a provider of public accommodations, although that law is interpreted more broadly.
The court held that all of Volman’s claims failed because he did not sufficiently allege that the defendants operated a place of public accommodation or provided public accommodations. His allegations about the defendants’ business were conclusory. He did not identify the type of business the defendants operated or the services they provided to the public, and his affidavit also supplied no such details.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied Volman’s motion for default judgment. Within 21 days of the order, Volman may request leave to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies and must serve that request on the defendants. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 30.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.