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 dismissed the website-accessibility case without prejudice because Velazquez did not adequately show a legal right to sue.
Bryan Velazquez’s claims were dismissed without prejudice; Elder Depot, Inc. was the defendant; and the court’s sanction against Velazquez’s counsel was incorporated into this order.
What happened
In Velazquez v. Elder Depot, Inc., Bryan Velazquez alleged that Elder Depot’s website was not accessible to visually impaired people, violating federal and New York City disability-discrimination laws.
The court found that Velazquez’s allegations were too vague to show that he had a legal right to bring the case. He said he had visited the website several times to make a purchase and intended to return if it became accessible, but he did not provide details such as visit dates, visit frequency, intended purchases, or why he wanted to buy from Elder Depot. The court had given him an opportunity to seek permission to file an amended complaint, but he did not file that motion.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of standing, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also incorporated a sanction previously imposed against Velazquez’s counsel in a different case and directed the clerk to close the motions and the case.
The detailed version
- Velazquez v. Elder Depot, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00105
- Valerie Caproni
- May 1, 2023
Background
Bryan Velazquez sued Elder Depot, Inc., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleged that Elder Depot’s website was inaccessible to visually impaired people, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Standing issue
Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the dispute to ask a federal court to decide it. The court stated that standing is a threshold issue and that a plaintiff who lacks standing has not established the court’s authority to hear the claims.
The complaint alleged that Velazquez visited Elder Depot’s website “on multiple occasions” to “make a purchase” and that he intended to visit the website again if it became accessible. The court held that these were vague assertions that did not adequately allege standing. Specifically, the complaint did not state the dates of the past visits, how often Velazquez visited, what items he intended to purchase, why he sought to purchase those items from Elder Depot, or what items he would seek to purchase in the future.
Opportunity to amend and sanctions
On April 20, 2023, the court ordered Velazquez to file a motion seeking permission to amend the complaint, with supporting legal argument and evidence, or to show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The deadline was April 27, 2023. Velazquez’s counsel filed a letter stating that he believed in good faith that the complaint adequately alleged standing and that an amended complaint would provide greater specificity. Counsel did not file the required motion for permission to amend.
The court had also ordered counsel to explain why he should not be sanctioned for filing a complaint that allegedly failed to adequately allege standing despite prior warnings. The court stated that it was incorporating the sanction imposed against counsel in a different website-accessibility case. The opinion does not state the amount or other details of that sanction.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of standing. It also incorporated the previously imposed sanction against counsel and directed the clerk to close all open motions and the case. The order was entered by Judge Valerie Caproni on May 1, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.