Gannon v. 31 Essex Street LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-01134
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Gannon v. 31 Essex Street LLC, Judge Ramos granted Essex Street’s dismissal motion because Gannon did not plausibly show he would return, but allowed amendment.
Stephen Gannon’s claims against 31 Essex Street LLC were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with permission to amend by February 17, 2023. The opinion does not state a disposition for Party Bus Bakeshop LLC or the unknown defendants.
What happened
In Gannon v. 31 Essex Street LLC, Stephen Gannon, who uses a wheelchair, alleged that steps at a bakeshop denied him equal access under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. The property was owned by 31 Essex Street LLC and leased by Party Bus Bakeshop LLC.
The court ruled that Gannon showed a past access problem and plausibly alleged that the barriers would continue. But he did not provide enough specific facts to show that he intended to return to the property, such as why he wanted to visit, how often he had visited, or how close he lived. The court therefore found that he lacked the required legal connection to bring the federal claims.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted 31 Essex Street LLC’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted Gannon permission to file an amended complaint by February 17, 2023. The opinion does not state a disposition for Party Bus Bakeshop LLC.
The detailed version
- Gannon v. 31 Essex Street LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01134
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 17, 2023
Background
Stephen Gannon alleged that architectural barriers at a six-story property owned by 31 Essex Street LLC and leased by Party Bus Bakeshop LLC prevented him from entering the bakeshop. The entrance had an eight-inch step to the doorway, an interior platform, and two additional eight-inch steps leading to the main floor. There was no permanent ramp, although the property had a portable ramp, signage, and a buzzer system when the complaint was filed.
Gannon alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, its accessibility standards, and several New York State and New York City laws. He alleged that he had been unable to access the property, remained deterred from returning, and would continue to face discrimination. The opinion also notes that Gannon and his attorney had filed twenty-six similar cases in the Southern District of New York since January 14, 2022.
Issue and Legal Standard
Essex Street moved to dismiss. The court treated the challenge to Gannon’s standing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks authority to hear the case. A plaintiff seeking to establish standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act must plausibly allege a past injury, a reasonable likelihood that the discrimination will continue, and a plausible intent to return to the location.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Gannon adequately alleged the first two requirements. His allegation that he could not enter the bakeshop because of the steps supported a past injury, and the alleged barriers and Essex Street’s statement that a permanent ramp was impractical supported a reasonable inference that the problem could continue.
The court found the third requirement lacking. Gannon did not provide specific facts showing why he wanted to visit the property, why he would want to return, how often he had visited or passed by it, or how close he lived to it. His statement that he lived in New York County was not enough to show close proximity. The court also found that his statement that he might patronize the bakeshop at some unspecified time was only a general future intention, not a concrete plan.
The court further stated that the complaint used general language closely resembling allegations in Gannon’s other cases. It concluded that Gannon had not shown a concrete and particular injury sufficient to establish standing, even though he might have adequately alleged that the property violated accessibility requirements.
Disposition
The court granted Essex Street’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also granted Gannon leave to amend because this was the first opportunity to identify the pleading’s defects and the court could not yet determine that amendment would be futile. Gannon could file an amended complaint by February 17, 2023; otherwise, the claims against Essex Street would be dismissed. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for Party Bus Bakeshop LLC or the unknown defendants.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.