Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 8, 2023

Brown v. American Spoon Foods, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:23-cv-03750
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
ADA / DisabilityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Brown v. American Spoon Foods, Judge Caproni ordered Brown to seek amendment or explain why his ADA website-access case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.

Who this affects

Lamar Brown and the putative group of similarly situated people he sought to represent, as well as American Spoon Foods, Inc.; the order required Brown to address standing before the case could proceed.

What happened

In Brown v. American Spoon Foods, Lamar Brown sued American Spoon Foods, Inc., claiming that its website was inaccessible to visually impaired people and violated federal, state, and city disability-rights laws.

The court said Brown’s complaint likely did not adequately show that he had standing—the legal requirement of a real, traceable injury that a court decision could remedy. The court found the allegations at least as conclusory as allegations previously rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Brown to file, by August 15, 2023, a motion to amend his complaint with supporting legal papers and evidence, or explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Brown v. American Spoon Foods, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03750
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 8, 2023

Background

Lamar Brown sued American Spoon Foods, 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, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion does not state that the court certified a class.

Standing issue

Constitutional standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete and particular injury that is actual or imminent, fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable court decision. For a plaintiff seeking an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the complaint must allege a past injury, a reasonable basis to infer that the discrimination will continue, and a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff intends to return to the location based on visit frequency and proximity to the plaintiff’s home.

The court stated that it may consider standing on its own because standing is a threshold requirement for the court’s authority to hear a case. It said Brown’s allegations likely failed to adequately establish standing because they were at least as conclusory as allegations that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had previously found insufficient.

Order

Judge Valerie Caproni did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, the court ordered Brown, by August 15, 2023, to file a motion for permission to amend his complaint so that it adequately alleges standing, including a legal memorandum and any supporting exhibits or declarations. Alternatively, Brown had to show cause—give a sufficient explanation—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.