Gannon v. Hua Da Inc

Background

Stephen Gannon, who uses a manually powered wheelchair, sued Hua Da Inc. and Big Famous 1 Deli & Grocery, Inc. He alleged that he was denied access to a hybrid delicatessen and grocery at 130 9th Avenue in Manhattan, doing business as Chelsea Deli & Café. His amended complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as state and local law. The complaint also sought relief on behalf of all others similarly situated.

The opinion states that Gannon filed at least 26 lawsuits between January and March 2022 alleging similar access violations. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Their principal argument was that Gannon lacked standing to seek an injunction under the ADA.

Standing Analysis

For an ADA plaintiff to have standing to seek injunctive relief, the Second Circuit requires allegations showing: (1) a past ADA injury; (2) a reasonable inference that the discriminatory treatment would continue; and (3) a reasonable inference, based on past visits and the location’s proximity to the plaintiff’s home, that the plaintiff intended to return. The central question is whether the facts plausibly show a real and immediate threat of future injury, rather than merely using words stating an intent to return.

Gannon alleged that he had visited the premises many times, identified October 8, 2021, as one date when he attempted to visit, lived in Manhattan, frequented the neighborhood, and anticipated returning many times. He also alleged that he had previously lived nearby and had close friends in the neighborhood. The court found these allegations insufficient. It said Gannon did not provide enough information about how often he had visited, did not establish that he lived close to the premises, and did not explain what was distinctive about this particular delicatessen and grocery or why he intended to return immediately if the barriers were removed.

The court also considered the broader context of Gannon’s 26 similar lawsuits and described the pleadings as transparent, cut-and-paste, and fill-in-the-blank complaints. It concluded that this context further undermined the plausibility of his alleged future injury. The court noted that Gannon’s assertion in his opposition brief that he lived 1.9 miles from the premises could not amend the allegations in his complaint, and it found that distance insufficient in any event under the circumstances described.

Disposition

The court concluded that Gannon lacked standing to pursue his ADA claims. It explained that the ADA does not provide damages in a private action such as this, so the standing issue was sufficient to dispose of the federal ADA claims. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, stating that the grant was without prejudice to filing suit in state court.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims—over Gannon’s state-law claims because the federal claims had been dismissed. It also declined supplemental jurisdiction over Hua Da’s amended cross-claim and amended third-party complaint. The court declined to grant Gannon another opportunity to amend because he had already received leave to amend, did not identify additional facts that would cure the defects, and did not request leave to amend again. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.