Velazquez v. Elder Depot, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-00105
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Velazquez v. Elder Depot, Judge Caproni ordered Plaintiff to seek amendment or explain why the disability-access case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
Bryan Velazquez, his counsel Mr. Rozenberg, and Elder Depot, Inc.; the order also concerns the proposed similarly situated plaintiffs identified in the complaint.
What happened
Velazquez v. Elder Depot, Inc. concerns Bryan Velazquez’s allegations that Elder Depot’s website was not accessible to people with visual impairments, violating federal and New York City disability laws.
The court said the complaint likely did not adequately show that Velazquez had standing—a legally sufficient injury and a real likelihood of future harm. The court also noted that similar allegations had previously been found insufficient and that counsel had received repeated warnings.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Velazquez to file a motion seeking permission to amend the complaint or explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The judge separately ordered his counsel to explain why sanctions should not be imposed; the order did not itself dismiss the case or impose sanctions.
The detailed version
- Velazquez v. Elder Depot, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00105
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Bryan Velazquez sued Elder Depot, Inc. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleged that Elder Depot’s failure to make its website accessible to visually impaired people violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Standing issue
The court explained that constitutional standing requires a plaintiff to allege a concrete and particular injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. For a disability-access claim seeking an order requiring changes, a plaintiff must also plausibly allege a real and immediate threat of future injury, including facts supporting an intent to return to the location or website at issue.
The court stated that the complaint’s allegations likely failed to establish standing because they were at least as conclusory as allegations that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had previously found insufficient. The court also noted that it had repeatedly ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to explain why similar complaints should not be dismissed for failing to adequately allege standing.
Counsel’s potential sanctions
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which prohibits filing complaints to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase litigation costs. The court also noted that counsel, Mr. Rozenberg, had previously been sanctioned for materially misrepresenting information to the court and admonished for failing to comply with court orders.
Order
The court ordered Plaintiff, by April 27, 2023, to file a motion—with a legal memorandum and supporting materials—for permission to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges standing, or to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The court separately ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause by the same date why he should not be sanctioned for filing a complaint that allegedly failed to adequately allege standing despite repeated warnings. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed or that sanctions were imposed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.