Matzura v. Macy's Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-09926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Matzura v. Macy’s Inc., Judge Carter dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff did not show standing to seek accessible gift cards.
Steven Matzura’s ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims were dismissed or left undecided because the court found no Article III standing. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Matzura v. Macy’s Inc., Steven Matzura alleged that Macy’s gift cards were inaccessible to blind or visually impaired people because they lacked Braille information. He sought court orders under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York state and city laws.
The court found that Matzura’s allegations were too general to show that he faced a real and immediate threat of future harm. He did not say that he had been a Macy’s customer or provide details about past visits or his reason for intending to buy a Braille gift card immediately. The court dismissed his Americans with Disabilities Act claim for lack of constitutional standing and declined to decide the state and city claims.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the complaint without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Matzura v. Macy's Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09926
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 15, 2022
Background
Steven Matzura brought this proposed class action against Macy’s Inc. He alleged that Macy’s gift cards were not accessible to blind or visually impaired individuals because they did not include information in Braille. The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Matzura sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court had stayed the case while the Second Circuit considered appeals in similar cases. After the Second Circuit decided Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd., the court ordered Matzura to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete personal injury that can be addressed by a federal court. Matzura did not respond to that order. He instead filed what the court described as a deficient notice of voluntary dismissal.
Standing analysis
For a plaintiff seeking an injunction under the ADA, the court explained that standing requires allegations of a past ADA injury, a reasonable basis to infer that discriminatory treatment will continue, and a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff intends to return to the business. The allegations must show a real and immediate threat of future injury, not merely possible future harm.
The court held that Matzura’s allegations were too conclusory to establish the required intent to return. He alleged only that he intended to immediately purchase at least one Macy’s gift card as soon as Macy’s sold gift cards containing Braille. He did not allege that he had been a Macy’s customer, provide details about past visits, or explain why he intended to purchase Braille gift cards so urgently. The court therefore concluded that he had not shown a concrete and particularized injury.
Disposition
The court dismissed Matzura’s ADA claim for lack of Article III standing. Because the ADA claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over the New York state and city claims. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge
The order was issued by Andrew L. Carter, Jr., United States District Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.