Velazquez v. Alpaca Direct, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-09168
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velazquez v. Alpaca Direct, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the case without prejudice because Velazquez had not adequately alleged standing.
Bryan Velazquez and the people he sought to represent; Alpaca Direct, LLC was also affected by the case's dismissal.
What happened
Bryan Velazquez brought Velazquez v. Alpaca Direct, LLC on behalf of himself and others described as similarly situated. The court had previously ordered him to amend the complaint because it did not adequately allege that he had standing to sue.
Velazquez filed a proposed amended complaint, but the court found that it also failed to adequately allege standing. After the court gave him another chance to amend, he filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice.
Judge Caproni dismissed the case without prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The court explained that the lack of adequately alleged standing meant it lacked authority to hear the case, and directed the clerk to close it.
The detailed version
- Velazquez v. Alpaca Direct, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09168
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 27, 2023
Background
Bryan Velazquez sued Alpaca Direct, LLC on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The court had ordered Velazquez to move to amend his complaint because he had not adequately alleged standing—the required connection allowing a person to bring a case in federal court.
Velazquez filed a motion to amend, but the proposed amended complaint also failed to adequately allege standing. On February 17, 2023, the court ordered him to seek permission to file another amended complaint adequately alleging standing by February 22, 2023, or the action would be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing.
Ruling
On February 22, 2023, Velazquez filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The court explained that because he had not adequately alleged standing, it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the authority to hear the case—and could dismiss the action only without prejudice.
The court therefore ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. It also directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.