Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2023

Velazquez v. Nextphase, Inc.

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:22-cv-07967
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ADA / DisabilityMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Velazquez v. Nextphase, Inc., Judge McMahon dismissed Bryan Velazquez’s ADA and NYCHRL claims without prejudice for lack of standing.

Who this affects

Bryan Velazquez’s ADA and NYCHRL claims were dismissed without prejudice; Nextphase, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was granted, and the case was closed.

What happened

Bryan Velazquez sued Nextphase, Inc., doing business as One Small Child, under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion provides no further details about the alleged conduct.

Nextphase moved to dismiss. The court ruled that Velazquez failed to satisfy the third Kriesler factor and therefore did not allege enough facts to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, which limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies. The federal claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Judge Colleen McMahon’s court also declined to hear the related New York City Human Rights Law claim after dismissing the federal claim. That claim was likewise dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Velazquez v. Nextphase, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07967
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
June 16, 2023

Background

Bryan Velazquez brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Nextphase, Inc., doing business as One Small Child. He also asserted a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The judgment does not describe the factual allegations underlying those claims.

Motion and Standing

Nextphase moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion. It stated that Velazquez failed to satisfy the third Kriesler factor and had therefore not alleged facts sufficient to establish Article III standing for his ADA claim. Article III standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a legally sufficient dispute that a federal court may decide.

Disposition

The ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice. After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state or local claims—over the NYCHRL claim. The NYCHRL claim was also dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed. Judge Colleen McMahon’s Decision and Order was dated June 16, 2023; the judgment was entered by the clerk of court.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.