The Clementine Company, LLC v. De Blasio
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-07779
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In The Clementine Company v. Adams, Judge McMahon dismissed the challenge as moot because the mandate ended and plaintiffs lacked standing.
The Clementine Company LLC and West End Artists Company, whose challenge to New York City's ended vaccine mandate was dismissed; the City official defendant prevailed on the standing and mootness issues.
What happened
The Clementine Company LLC and West End Artists Company challenged New York City's vaccine-checking requirement for theaters and comedy clubs, seeking court orders and nominal damages for alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The requirement ended in March 2022 after Eric Adams became mayor, and the appeals court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as moot.
The plaintiffs argued that the case remained live because the requirement could return if COVID-19 rates increased and because they sought nominal damages. The court rejected those arguments, finding that the possibility of reinstatement was speculative and that the plaintiffs had not alleged an injury to themselves; alleged injuries to potential audience members were not enough to establish standing.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and directed the clerk to close the case. The court ruled that the requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot and that the nominal-damages request did not save the case because the plaintiffs lacked standing.
The detailed version
- The Clementine Company, LLC v. De Blasio · No. 1:21-cv-07779
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 7, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs challenged New York City's “Key to NYC” vaccine mandate. The mandate required covered entities, including theaters and comedy clubs, to check the vaccination status of patrons and staff. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages, based on alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The court had previously denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, finding that they lacked standing and were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The plaintiffs appealed. While the appeal was pending, Mayor Eric Adams issued an executive order ending the mandate on March 7, 2022. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. The district court then ordered the plaintiffs to explain why their remaining claims should not also be dismissed as moot.
Mootness
The plaintiffs argued that the voluntary-cessation exception kept the case alive because the challenged conduct could recur if COVID-19 cases increased. The court disagreed. Because the mandate had expired, the plaintiffs no longer had to check the vaccination status of people buying tickets for indoor live performances, so the court could not provide additional effective declaratory or injunctive relief.
The court also held that the voluntary-cessation exception did not apply. It found no reasonable expectation that the mandate would be reinstated, considering the change in city administration, reduced COVID-19 rates, and the city's stated 96 percent vaccination rate among adults. The court characterized any possible recurrence as speculative.
Nominal damages and standing
The plaintiffs argued that their request for nominal damages preserved a live controversy. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, explaining that nominal damages can support standing when a plaintiff has alleged an injury and shown that the defendant caused it. Here, the court relied on its earlier preliminary-injunction decision and concluded that the plaintiffs had not alleged an injury-in-fact to themselves. They alleged injuries only to potential audience members and did not allege the facts needed for associational standing.
The defendant had also moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), citing lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court stated that, for the reasons given in its earlier decision, the plaintiffs lacked standing and the defendant's motion would be granted on that ground. The court rejected the attempt to use the nominal-damages request to keep the moot claims alive.
Disposition
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.