Calcano v. Jonathan Adler Enterprises, LLC

Background

Evelina Calcano brought the case for herself and other similarly situated people against Jonathan Adler Enterprises, LLC. She alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and relies on braille to read written material. She alleged that, after contacting the company on December 2, 2019, she learned that its employees said store gift cards containing braille were not available.

The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Calcano sought an injunction requiring the company to change its policies and practices so that its store gift cards would be accessible to and usable by visually impaired people. She also sought compensatory damages under the state and city laws.

Motion and standing issue

The company moved for judgment on the pleadings, a motion decided under the same standard as a motion to dismiss, arguing that Calcano lacked standing and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Standing requires a plaintiff to show an actual injury, a connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. For a request for an injunction, a plaintiff must also show a real and immediate likelihood of being harmed again.

The court applied Second Circuit precedent concerning similar claims about businesses that did not offer braille gift cards. That precedent requires more than a bare statement that a plaintiff intends to return if accessible gift cards become available. The complaint must include facts making the claimed future injury plausible.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Calcano’s allegations were insufficient. Although she alleged that she lived in New York City and that the company had stores in the Southern District of New York, she did not allege that she lived near any of the stores. She also did not identify where she lived within New York City, where the stores were located within the city, how long it would take her to travel to a store, or that she had previously been a customer at one of the stores.

The court also found that Calcano’s allegation that she intended to immediately purchase a store gift card once braille cards became available was conclusory and did not establish a reasonable inference of future injury. Calcano did not oppose the motion, and the court held that she had not met her burden to show that federal jurisdiction was proper.

Disposition

The court dismissed Calcano’s Americans with Disabilities Act claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related New York state and New York City claims. Because the court found that it lacked jurisdiction, it did not decide whether the complaint adequately stated a claim for relief.

The court granted the company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in its entirety. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and to close the case.