Delacruz v. Club Monaco U.S., LLC

Background

Emanuel Delacruz sued Club Monaco U.S., LLC, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. The complaint alleged that Club Monaco’s gift cards were inaccessible to legally blind people. It asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The complaint sought a declaration that Club Monaco marketed, distributed, and sold gift cards in a discriminatory manner; injunctive relief; and compensatory damages under the state and city laws. Delacruz alleged that, on October 25, 2019, he asked Club Monaco whether it sold gift cards containing Braille and was told that it did not. He also alleged that he intended to immediately purchase at least one gift card once Club Monaco sold gift cards containing Braille, and that accessible gift cards would allow blind and visually impaired people to use them independently.

The case had been stayed while related litigation proceeded. In that related litigation, the Second Circuit held that similar allegations did not adequately show that the plaintiffs faced a real and immediate threat of future injury. After the stay was lifted, Magistrate Judge Ona Wang ordered Delacruz to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Delacruz did not respond. Judge Wang recommended dismissal, and no party objected to the recommendation.

Legal standards

Standing is the requirement that a person show a sufficient personal injury for a federal court to resolve the dispute. For a claim seeking damages, a plaintiff generally must show a concrete and particular injury, that the defendant caused it, and that a court can likely remedy it. For an ADA claim seeking an order requiring future access, the complaint must plausibly allege past discrimination, a reasonable likelihood that the discrimination will continue, and a real and immediate threat that the plaintiff will suffer the injury again.

When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district judge generally reviews the record for clear error. Clear error means an obvious mistake in the recommendation or the record.

Analysis

The court found that Delacruz’s allegations were too conclusory to establish a concrete and particularized injury. Although he stated that he intended to buy an accessible gift card in the future, he did not allege that he had previously visited a Club Monaco store, identify which stores he visited or what he purchased, or explain why he wanted to buy the gift cards. The court concluded that these allegations did not reasonably show a real and immediate threat of future injury.

Because the ADA claim was the only federal claim, the court dismissed it for lack of standing. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after the federal claims are gone—over the New York State and New York City claims.

Disposition

The court found no clear error in Judge Wang’s report and recommendation, adopted it in its entirety, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.