Perez, Jr. v. Due Milla Realty Group LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-05794
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. Due Milla Realty Group, Judge Cronan dismissed the case without prejudice because the ADA claim became moot after the premises closed.
The plaintiff’s ADA and related state-law claims were dismissed, and the case was closed. The opinion also denied Defendants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw without prejudice as moot.
What happened
In Perez, Jr. v. Due Milla Realty Group LLC, the plaintiff brought a federal claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act concerning a place of public accommodation. Defense counsel told the court that Mighty Quinn’s would stop operating at the premises on April 9, 2023.
The court explained that a private individual may seek only an order requiring accessibility under Title III, not money damages. Because the business had closed, that relief was no longer possible, so the ADA claim became moot and the court lost authority to hear it. The related state-law claims could not remain in federal court after the federal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Cronan dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissed the related state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court also denied Defendants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw without prejudice as moot.
The detailed version
- Perez, Jr. v. Due Milla Realty Group LLC · No. 1:19-cv-05794
- John Cronan
- Apr. 19, 2023
Background
Plaintiff’s sole federal claim arose under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. The claim concerned alleged violations at a place of public accommodation. On April 4, 2023, Defendants’ counsel informed the court that Defendant CMH BBQ Holdings, LLC, identified in the opinion as “Mighty Quinn’s,” would close its operations at the subject premises on April 9, 2023.
ADA Claim
The court stated that a private individual may obtain injunctive relief for a Title III violation but may not recover damages. Because the place of public accommodation had closed, the court concluded that the requested relief was no longer possible. It therefore held that the ADA claim was moot. Mootness meant that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the authority to hear the claim—and the ADA claim had to be dismissed.
State-Law Claims
The court further held that, after dismissing the sole federal claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state-law claims. The court dismissed those claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan ordered that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied without prejudice as moot Defendants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. It directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 77 and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.