Bennett v. Morrison Management LLC

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter before the scheduled initial pretrial conference. They agreed on a proposed discovery schedule, reported that they had no issues to raise with the Court, and proposed completing all discovery within six months. No discovery had occurred, no other deadlines were listed, and the letter reported no outstanding motions apart from the pending motion at docket entry 20.

Claims and Defenses

Sabrina Bennett seeks, among other relief, to require the defendants to make the premises readily accessible and usable for people with disabilities who use wheelchairs. The letter identifies claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Civil Rights Law § 40, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The parties identify compliance with the federal accessibility standards as the major legal and factual issue.

Morrison Management LLC states that it owns the building. It also states that the commercial tenant has control over the premises to the extent relevant to the action, that the tenant keeps a ramp available during business hours except for short maintenance periods, and that tenant staff regularly assist patrons who need help. The letter identifies possible discovery concerning alterations, architectural and design plans, an expert inspection, and financial documents if the defendants assert that changes were not financially feasible.

Jurisdiction, Venue, and Requested Case Management

Bennett asserts federal-question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the action concerns rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She asserts supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) based on the alleged conduct and the location of the public accommodation. The parties reported that they had not yet discussed settlement but were interested in referral to the Southern District of New York’s mediation program.

Ruling

The Court marked the application granted. It adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for December 14, 2022, without setting a new date. The Court stated that the parties’ proposed case-management plan and an order referring the case to the district’s mediation program would issue separately. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 20. The order did not decide the parties’ accessibility claims or defenses.