Toro v. Black Sheep Enterprise, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-02268
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toro v. Black Sheep Enterprise, Judge Caproni dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of standing.
Andrew Toro, the proposed similarly situated plaintiffs, and Black Sheep Enterprise, Inc.
What happened
Andrew Toro sued Black Sheep Enterprise, Inc., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleged that the company’s website was not accessible to visually impaired people, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and two New York civil-rights laws.
The court determined that Toro had not adequately alleged standing, meaning he had not shown enough legally recognized connection to bring the claims. The court therefore lacked authority to hear the case. Toro filed a notice of settlement and asked to pause deadlines, but he did not respond to the court’s later order requiring a motion to amend the complaint.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case without prejudice and without costs. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and deadlines and close the case.
The detailed version
- Toro v. Black Sheep Enterprise, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02268
- Valerie Caproni
- May 11, 2023
Background
Andrew Toro sued Black Sheep Enterprise, Inc., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The complaint alleged that Black Sheep’s failure to make its website accessible to visually impaired people violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
On April 24, 2023, the court ordered Toro to move for permission to amend the complaint because it did not adequately allege standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the dispute to bring the case. On April 27, Toro filed a notice of settlement and sought a stay of all deadlines. On May 1, the court ordered him to file the amendment motion by May 5 or the case would be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. The court received no response from Toro.
Ruling
The court stated that Toro’s inadequate standing allegation meant it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, or legal authority to hear the case. It dismissed the case without prejudice and without costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and deadlines and close the case.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the case for lack of standing and subject-matter jurisdiction without deciding whether the website violated the asserted laws.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.