Opinion

Brown v. American Spoon Foods, Inc.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 27.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 08/29/2 023

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------- X

LAMAR BROWN, on behalf of himself and all :

others similarly situated, : 23-CV-3750 (VEC)

:

Plaintiff, : ORDER

:

-against- :

:

:

AMERICAN SPOON FOODS, INC., :

:

:

Defendant. :

-------------------------------------------------------------- X

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:

WHEREAS on May 4, 2023, Plaintiff sued American Spoon Foods, Inc., alleging that its

failure to make its website accessible to visually impaired persons violates the Americans with

Disability Act (“ADA”), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil

Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, see Compl., Dkt. 1;

WHEREAS the Court may raise the question of standing sua sponte because standing is a

threshold matter of justiciability, and if a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the Court has no choice

but to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, see Thompson v. Cnty.

of Franklin, 15 F.3d 245, 248 (2d Cir. 1994); Cent. States SE & SW Areas Health & Welfare

Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 433 F.3d 181, 198 (2d Cir. 2005);

WHEREAS on August 8, 2023, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations in his

Complaint likely fail adequately to allege standing under Calcano v. Swarovski et al., 36 F.4th

68, 75 (2d Cir. 2022), see Order, Dkt. 7;

WHEREAS the Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not

be dismissed for lack of standing not later than August 15, 2023, see id.;

WHEREAS on August 18, 2023, in light of Plaintiff’s failure timely to respond or request

an extension to respond to the Court’s order, the Court sua sponte extended Plaintiff’s deadline

to respond, or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, until

August 23, 2023, see Order, Dkt. 8;

WHEREAS a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte “[i]f the plaintiff fails to

prosecute or to comply with [the] rules or a court order,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also LeSane

v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001); and

WHEREAS to date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s August 8, 2023 or August

18, 2023 Orders;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of

standing and for failure to prosecute. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff made “numerous

attempts” to purchase “strawberry jam” on Defendant’s website, and that he “intends to visit” the

website “in the future in order to make additional potential purchases of a fruit butter and other

products” because he “enjoys the various jams and preserves” on Defendant’s website. See

Compl. ¶¶ 10, 36–37. Such “vague assertions” are insufficient to allege standing because

Plaintiff “fail[s] to provide any details” about his interaction with Defendant’s website such as

the frequency of his visits, the items he intended to purchase on each occasion, why he sought to

purchase them from Defendant in particular, or the unique items he would like to purchase from

Defendant in the future. Calcano, 36 F.4th at 76–77; see also Tavarez-Vargas v. Annie’s Publ’n,

LLC, No. 21-CV-9862 (AT), 2023 WL 2499966, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2023) (dismissing a

website ADA case for lack of standing because the amended complaint “contain[ed] bare,

conclusory statements” and lacked factual allegations that would allow the court to infer that the

plaintiff “intend[ed] to return to [the] [d]efendant’s website”); Lopez v. Peapod, LLC, No. 19-

CV-9906 (KPF), 2021 WL 1108559, at *4—-5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2021) (same). Plaintiffs

repeated failure to respond to Court orders independently warrants dismissal for failure to

prosecute. See Smith v. Dinoia, No. 19-CV-4471 (KMK), 2020 WL 4041449, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y.

July 17, 2020) (dismissing for failure to prosecute because the plaintiff was unresponsive despite

warnings that the case could be dismissed).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close all open motions and to close the case.

SO ORDERED. \ tne

Date: August 29, 2023 VALERIE aaah NI

New York, New York United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.