Toro v. Allcases, Reekstin & Associates, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-01979
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toro v. Allcases, Judge Caproni ordered Luis Toro to address likely standing problems by April 26 or explain why the case should not be dismissed.
The order directly affects Luis Toro, who must address the court’s concerns about standing; it also affects his proposed claims on behalf of similarly situated persons.
What happened
In Toro v. Allcases, Luis Toro alleged that Allcases, Reekstin & Associates, Inc. maintained a website that was not accessible to visually impaired people, violating federal, state, and city disability laws.
The court said the complaint likely did not adequately show that Toro had standing—the required personal injury and connection to the defendant’s conduct needed to bring the case. The court also said the allegations were at least as general as allegations that the appeals court had found insufficient.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Toro, by April 26, 2023, to file a motion seeking permission to amend the complaint to adequately allege standing or explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Toro v. Allcases, Reekstin & Associates, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01979
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Luis Toro sued Allcases, Reekstin & Associates, Inc., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleged that the defendant’s website was inaccessible to visually impaired persons, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Standing Issue
The court addressed constitutional standing, which requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege a concrete and personal injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. For an Americans with Disabilities Act claim seeking an order requiring future access, 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 as applicable.
The court noted that it could consider standing because standing is a threshold requirement for the court’s authority to hear a case. It said Toro’s allegations likely failed to adequately establish standing because they were at least as general as the allegations that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had found insufficient in an earlier case.
Order
The court ordered Toro, no later than April 26, 2023, to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges standing, or to show cause—provide a sufficient explanation—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The order did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.