Bishop v. Spartan Capital Securities, LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-09114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bishop v. Spartan Capital Securities, Judge Torres denied Spartan’s request to delay the case-management deadline and ordered a response to its request to file a dismissal motion.
Spartan Capital Securities, LLC must proceed under the existing case-management schedule, and Cedric Bishop must respond to Spartan’s request for permission to file a motion to dismiss by January 3, 2023. The order did not resolve the merits of Bishop’s claims.
What happened
In Cedric Bishop v. Spartan Capital Securities, LLC, Spartan asked the court to postpone the deadline for submitting a joint case-management plan and to allow it to file a motion seeking dismissal. Spartan’s letter concerned Bishop’s proposed class action alleging that its website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Spartan argued that the website was not a place of public accommodation, that Bishop had not alleged accessibility barriers or a sufficient injury, and that he lacked legal standing. Spartan also argued that the related state-law claims should be dismissed if the federal claims were dismissed. These arguments were presented in a request for permission to file a dismissal motion; the court did not decide them in this order.
Judge Analisa Torres denied Spartan’s request to postpone the case-management deadline. She ordered the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by January 3, 2023, and ordered Bishop to respond by that date to Spartan’s request for permission to file a dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Bishop v. Spartan Capital Securities, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09114
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 23, 2022
Background
The opinion consists of a letter from Spartan Capital Securities, LLC, through its counsel, and Judge Torres’s order responding to that letter. The case is described as a putative class action brought by Cedric Bishop under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The letter alleges that Spartan’s website was inaccessible to visually impaired people.
Spartan requested two forms of relief: an adjournment, meaning a postponement, of the December 23, 2022 deadline for submitting a joint proposed case-management plan and scheduling order; and permission to file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Spartan’s letter argued that Bishop’s complaint did not adequately allege that Spartan’s website was a place of public accommodation or that Bishop was denied equal access to Spartan’s services. Spartan also argued that Bishop lacked standing because, in its view, he had not alleged an injury that could be caused or remedied by changes to the website. Spartan further argued that the state-law claims lacked an independent basis for remaining in federal court if the federal claims were dismissed.
What the Court Decided
The court denied Spartan’s request to adjourn the deadline for submitting the proposed case-management plan. The parties were ordered to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by January 3, 2023. The court also ordered Bishop to file a response by January 3, 2023, to Spartan’s request for permission to file a motion to dismiss.
The order did not grant Spartan permission to file the dismissal motion, deny that permission, dismiss any claims, or decide the parties’ arguments about the Americans with Disabilities Act, standing, or the state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.