Yan Luis v. Molton Brown USA LLC
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-06471
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yan Luis v. Molton Brown USA LLC, Judge Rochon dismissed the pending motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to refiling it against the amended complaint.
The ruling affects the plaintiff and Molton Brown USA LLC: the pending motion to dismiss the original complaint was terminated as moot, while Molton Brown may refile a motion addressing the amended complaint.
What happened
In Yan Luis v. Molton Brown USA LLC, the plaintiff alleged that Molton Brown’s website was not accessible to blind and visually impaired customers, violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Molton Brown moved to dismiss the original complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint while that motion was still pending.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon dismissed the motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to refiling it against the amended complaint. The court also referred the case to a magistrate judge for general pretrial matters, including settlement, and ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having the magistrate judge conduct further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Yan Luis v. Molton Brown USA LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06471
- Rochon
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
Plaintiff alleged that Molton Brown USA LLC’s website was inaccessible to blind and visually impaired customers and therefore violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 27, 2022, Molton Brown filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint under the court’s earlier order.
Ruling on the Motion
Because Plaintiff amended the complaint while the motion to dismiss was pending, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to refiling it with respect to the amended complaint. The order therefore did not resolve the motion’s jurisdictional argument or the underlying accessibility claim.
Additional Orders
By a separate order, the court referred the case to the assigned magistrate judge for general pretrial purposes, including settlement. The court also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. The court stated that there would be no adverse consequences if the parties did not consent. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 9.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.