Zinnamon v. Satya Jewelry II, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-00781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Zinnamon v. Satya Jewelry, Judge Caproni ordered counsel and their firm to pay a stayed $1,000 sanction for inadequate ADA standing allegations.
Mark Rozenberg and Stein Saks PLLC were ordered to pay the $1,000 sanction. Warren Zinnamon’s voluntarily dismissed case was already closed, and Satya Jewelry II, LLC was not found to be in default.
What happened
In Zinnamon v. Satya Jewelry II, LLC, Warren Zinnamon sued Satya Jewelry II, LLC, claiming its website was inaccessible in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint said he intended to visit the website in the near future if it became accessible, but did not provide enough specific facts about his interest in the jewelry or plans to return.
The court concluded that these statements did not plausibly show that Zinnamon faced a real and immediate threat of future harm. The court also noted that his lawyer, Mark Rozenberg, and the law firm Stein Saks PLLC had previously been warned that similar boilerplate complaints did not adequately allege standing.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Rozenberg and Stein Saks to pay a $1,000 sanction under the federal filing rules. The payment obligation was stayed for two years beginning May 1, 2023, and the fine would be canceled if neither filed another obviously inadequate ADA website complaint in the Southern District of New York during that period. Zinnamon had voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice before the order, but the court retained authority to impose sanctions.
The detailed version
- Zinnamon v. Satya Jewelry II, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00781
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 28, 2023
Background
Warren Zinnamon filed an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit against Satya Jewelry II, LLC, alleging that its website was inaccessible to visually impaired people. The complaint was filed on January 31, 2023, according to the opinion. Zinnamon later filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice. The court stated that the case was closed but retained authority to decide whether sanctions were appropriate.
The case was part of a broader pattern described in the opinion. Zinnamon’s lawyer, Mark Rozenberg, an associate at Stein Saks PLLC, had filed hundreds of similar ADA website complaints. Before this complaint was filed, the court had repeatedly required Rozenberg to explain why similar complaints should not be dismissed for failing to adequately allege standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury and a sufficient likelihood of future harm.
Standing Allegations
For an ADA claim seeking an order requiring accessibility improvements, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege past injury, a reasonable likelihood that discriminatory treatment will continue, and facts supporting an intent to return to the website. The complaint alleged that Zinnamon had visited Satya Jewelry’s website on multiple unspecified occasions and intended to visit it again in the near future if it became accessible.
The court found those allegations insufficient. They did not explain Zinnamon’s interest in Satya Jewelry’s products or jewelry generally, why he preferred Satya Jewelry’s offerings, whether he wanted a particular type of jewelry, or whether he had been unable to find comparable jewelry elsewhere. The complaint also did not allege concrete plans to revisit the website. The court therefore concluded that the complaint did not plausibly establish standing.
Rule 11 Sanction
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires an attorney who files a paper with the court to make a reasonable inquiry and certify that the filing is not for an improper purpose, that its legal arguments are supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law, and that its factual allegations have evidentiary support. After notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, a court may impose an appropriate sanction for violating that rule.
The court concluded that the standing allegations were plainly inadequate and that Rozenberg and Stein Saks had already been warned at least four times that the same cookie-cutter approach was insufficient. The court also criticized Rozenberg’s response to the order to show cause. That response said Zinnamon had voluntarily dismissed the case because Satya Jewelry was in default, but the court noted that Satya Jewelry’s time to answer had been stayed until an initial pretrial conference and that the defendant was not in default.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Rozenberg and Stein Saks to pay a $1,000 sanction for filing the complaint. The obligation to pay was stayed for two years beginning May 1, 2023. If neither Rozenberg nor Stein Saks filed an ADA website lawsuit in the Southern District of New York during that period that obviously failed to allege standing adequately, the court would abrogate, or cancel, the fine.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.