ADA – drive-by litigation
-
ADA claims in NY State Courts – is there a winning strategy that makes sense?
Federal district courts in New York do not agree on whether the ADA covers internet only businesses and, to a lesser degree, on the extent to which website tester plaintiffs have standing. In response professional plaintiffs and their lawyers have been, for several years, filing suit in New York’s state courts.¹ On its face this… Continue reading
-
If at first you don’t succeed. . . alternative milk litigation again.
On November 5, 2024 Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the claims in Munoz v Peet’s Coffee, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-01764 in the Northern District of California. I’ve blogged about these cases recently¹ so I won’t go into detail. As might be expected, the plaintiff lost. The reasons were simple. The plaintiff’s first claim was the addition… Continue reading
-
ADA and FHA Standing – good news, bad news and a twist
I don’t usually blog about my own cases because it requires that I put in a disclaimer.¹ However, a trio of district court decisions, including two in cases where I represent the defendant, justify another look at standing after Transunion and the Laufer cases.² I’ll start with the good news of an apparent trend in… Continue reading
-
Acheson Hotels: tester standing at the crossroads part 1.
Now that everyone (and I mean everyone¹ ) has weighed in on tester standing as presented to the Supreme Court in Acheson Hotels v Laufer I thought I might as well try to explain the issue for those who don’t live and breathe disabilities rights litigation. In my next blog I’ll look at the legal… Continue reading
-
Can an ADA website accessibility claim be mooted?
In ADA website litigation failure can teach us as much as success, and the plaintiff’s failure in Tavarez v. Extract Labs, Inc., 2023 WL 2712537, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2023) is no exception.¹ Before getting into the details, here’s a primer on the doctrine of “mootness.” Article III of the Constitution gives federal courts… Continue reading
