Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services
- Vyskocil
- 1:17-cv-03014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services, Judge Vyskocil ordered jurisdiction submissions before deciding whether the case could reopen for attorney’s fees.
Mariah Lopez and the NYC Department of Homeless Services were required to submit evidence and positions on whether the federal court had jurisdiction before it could consider reopening the case or retaining jurisdiction over attorney’s fees.
What happened
Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services began when Mariah Lopez, initially without a lawyer, sought to keep a dog at a homeless shelter. The City agreed to accommodate the dog, but the case later expanded to claims about shelter transfers, retaliation, disability accommodations, and broader shelter-system changes.
After the parties reached a settlement, Lopez’s counsel sought to preserve the possibility of requesting attorney’s fees. The court had previously refused to reopen the case or keep jurisdiction because it questioned whether Lopez had standing, whether the dispute was still active, and whether the parties still had opposing interests. The court ordered both sides to submit evidence and explanations about those issues by May 11, 2023.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not resolve the jurisdiction questions in this order. Instead, she required submissions addressing Lopez’s housing, shelter custody, New York City residence, possible time outside the city, and the injury and disagreement that remained when the parties settled.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services · No. 1:17-cv-03014
- Vyskocil
- May 4, 2023
Background
Mariah Lopez began the case in 2017 while proceeding without a lawyer. She sought an order requiring the New York City Department of Homeless Services to place her at Marsha’s House and accommodate her dog, which she described as a service animal. The City agreed to accept the dog into the shelter system without deciding whether it was a service animal or an emotional-support animal. The initial emergency order was dissolved.
The litigation later involved Lopez’s attempted transfer from Marsha’s House, allegations that the transfer was retaliatory, and a claim that placement at Marsha’s House was the only reasonable accommodation for alleged disabilities. The case was later consolidated with another federal case. Claims against Project Renewal, WIN West, and Christine C. Quinn were no longer part of the consolidated litigation, leaving Lopez and the City as the remaining parties, according to the opinion.
Over time, the case became focused on settlement and possible systemic changes to shelter policies for transgender individuals. The court became concerned that Lopez might not have been in the Department of Homeless Services’ custody when the operative complaint was filed or afterward, and that it was unclear whether she remained homeless or lived primarily in New York City. The court also questioned whether the parties continued to have genuinely opposing interests.
Prior orders and appeal
In September 2021, the court discontinued the actions without costs and without prejudice to restoring them to the court’s calendar if the settlement could not be completed by the stated deadline. The order stated that if no application to restore the case was made by that deadline, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court later extended the time to seek attorney’s fees and the time to move to restore the case, but repeatedly warned that any request to restore the case had to demonstrate a live case or controversy.
The parties eventually filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and asked the court to retain jurisdiction for a later attorney’s-fee motion. The court refused to reopen the case or retain jurisdiction, and Lopez appealed. The Second Circuit sent the matter back for clarification about whether the court intended to prevent counsel from filing an attorney’s-fee motion or had made an error.
Jurisdiction issue
The court explained that federal courts have an ongoing constitutional duty to determine whether they have jurisdiction. Article III limits federal jurisdiction to actual “cases” and “controversies.” Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete injury, that the defendant caused it, and that judicial relief could likely remedy it. A dispute can also become moot when changed circumstances eliminate the parties’ personal stakes and opposing interests.
The court was concerned that these requirements might not have been satisfied before the settlement. The record suggested that Lopez left the Department of Homeless Services’ custody in 2017 and might not have returned before dismissal. The record also raised questions about whether she remained homeless or lived in New York City and whether the parties still had adverse interests before settling.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file submissions by May 11, 2023, addressing whether Article III jurisdiction existed. The submissions had to provide evidence about whether Lopez had a stable residence, when she lacked one, when she was in the Department of Homeless Services’ custody, when she lived in New York City, and whether she spent extended periods outside the city.
The parties also had to explain what injury Lopez had when they settled, whether the City caused that injury, whether the court could have remedied it absent settlement, when the City agreed that systemic reform was needed, and what genuine dispute remained at that time. The order did not decide whether Lopez had standing, whether the case was moot, whether the parties had adverse interests, or whether the court could reopen the case or award attorney’s fees.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.