Cruz v. JKS Ventures, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-08311
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cruz v. JKS Ventures, Judge Liman required more briefing before deciding whether to approve a consent decree affecting other people with vision disabilities.
The order directly affects Allion Michele Cruz and JKS Ventures, Inc., and it may affect people with vision disabilities, screen-reader users, proposed class members, and other potential plaintiffs who might bring similar claims.
What happened
In Cruz v. JKS Ventures, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed consent decree resolving a case that had originally been filed as a proposed class action. The decree said that people with vision disabilities, including screen-reader users and proposed class members, would be third-party beneficiaries.
The defendant said the decree was intended to protect it from similar claims by other potential plaintiffs. The court explained that people in a proposed class are not bound by a case unless the class has been certified, and that a class settlement generally requires notice, a hearing, and a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Judge Liman did not approve the consent decree at this stage. He required supplemental briefing by February 16, 2024, addressing whether the decree would do more than give third parties rights under the decree without taking away rights they may have under substantive law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. JKS Ventures, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08311
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 9, 2024
Background
The parties asked the court to approve, on an individual basis, a proposed consent decree. The case had originally been filed as a proposed class action, meaning the plaintiff had sought to proceed on behalf of a larger group, but the opinion does not state that the class had been certified.
The proposed decree included a provision stating that it would benefit all people with vision disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, including people who use screen readers to access the website and members of the proposed class identified in the complaint. It also stated that those people would be third-party beneficiaries of the decree—people who could receive rights under an agreement even though they were not the signatories to it.
The defendant stated that the decree was intended to protect it from similar claims brought by other potential plaintiffs whose claims were being addressed by the settlement.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a person included in a proposed class is not bound by decisions in the case when the class has not been certified. That person retains the rights he or she would have had if the case had never been filed. The court also explained that a class-action settlement binds class members only after court approval following reasonable notice and a hearing at which the court determines that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2).
The court had not been asked to make those findings. It therefore required additional information about whether the proposed consent decree was intended to do more than give third parties rights under the decree. Specifically, the court sought clarification about whether the decree would detract from rights those people might have under substantive law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Disposition
The court did not approve the proposed consent decree in this order. It required supplemental briefing on the specified issue, to be filed by February 16, 2024. The opinion does not state a final ruling on the decree’s enforceability or on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.