Velazquez v. JoJo Designs, LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-07565
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Velazquez v. JoJo Designs, Judge Broderick ordered Velazquez to amend his complaint or explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
Bryan Velazquez and the proposed similarly situated group he sought to represent, as well as JoJo Designs, LLC. The order required Velazquez to address standing before the case could proceed.
What happened
In Velazquez v. JoJo Designs, LLC, Bryan Velazquez sued over the company’s alleged failure to make its website accessible to visually impaired people. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and sought court orders, a declaration, damages, and interest.
Judge Broderick questioned whether Velazquez had standing—the required connection between an alleged injury and a court’s ability to remedy it. The court said the complaint likely did not adequately allege a real and immediate threat of future injury, and noted that it was nearly identical to six other complaints filed by Velazquez that same day.
Judge Broderick ordered Velazquez, by November 14, 2023, either to ask for permission to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges standing or to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The court did not dismiss the case in this order or decide whether the website violated either law.
The detailed version
- Velazquez v. JoJo Designs, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07565
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
Bryan Velazquez sued JoJo Designs, LLC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. He alleged that JoJo Designs failed to make its website accessible to visually impaired persons, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law. He requested injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, damages, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Standing concern
The court examined standing, which is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be remedied by a favorable court decision. For an ADA claim seeking an order requiring future accessibility, the plaintiff must plausibly allege a past ADA injury, a reasonable likelihood that the discriminatory treatment will continue, and a real and immediate threat that the plaintiff will be injured again.
Judge Broderick stated that Velazquez’s allegations likely failed to establish standing because they were at least as conclusory as allegations previously found inadequate by the Court of Appeals. The court also noted that, apart from the caption, defendant name, and website name, the complaint was identical to six other complaints Velazquez filed the same day.
Order
The court ordered that, by November 14, 2023, Velazquez must either move for permission to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges standing or show cause—explain why—the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The order did not dismiss the case, rule on the ADA or New York City Human Rights Law claims, or decide whether JoJo Designs violated either law.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.