Adams v. 64 Downing Street LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-06878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Adams v. 64 Downing Street, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled ADA case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.
Joshua Adams, 64 Downing Street LLC, and Sarpar LLC were affected. The case was dismissed with prejudice and closed, subject to the limited procedures for seeking reopening or asking the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Adams v. 64 Downing Street LLC, Joshua Adams sued 64 Downing Street LLC and Sarpar LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging he was denied access to and equal enjoyment of the facility. The parties later told the court they had reached an agreement resolving all issues.
The court directed Adams to file an amended complaint adequately alleging standing, and he did so. The court then dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to ask to reopen the case within 15 days if they show good cause. The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the settlement agreement and a request for such an order within that period.
The detailed version
- Adams v. 64 Downing Street LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06878
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 6, 2022
Background
Joshua Adams sued 64 Downing Street LLC and Sarpar LLC on August 23, 2022. He alleged that he was denied access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods and services of the facility in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The opinion does not provide the specific facts underlying that allegation.
On November 2, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. On November 3, the court ordered Adams to seek permission to amend his complaint to adequately allege standing, meaning the facts needed to show his legal right to bring the case. Adams moved to amend and filed a proposed amended complaint. The court then ordered him to file that proposal as the amended complaint, which he did on December 6, 2022.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. “With prejudice” means the case was dismissed in a way that bars refiling the same case. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Possible Reopening or Settlement Enforcement
Within 15 days of the order, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the power to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement to the court under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that jurisdiction within the same 15-day period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.