Namel Norris v. 684 Pizza, Inc., d/b/a West Side Pie, and Enterprise 51 Parking LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-09090
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDC SDNY --------------------------------------------------------------X DOCUMENT NAMEL NORRIS, : ELECTRONICALLY FILED : DOC #: Plaintiff, : DATE FILED: 11/4/2025 -against- : : : 25-CV-09090 (VEC) 684 PIZZA, INC., a New York corporation, : d/b/a WEST SIDE PIE, and ENTERPRISE 51 : ORDER PARKING LLC, a New York limited liability : company, : : Defendants. : --------------------------------------------------------------X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on November 3, 2025, Plaintiff sued 684 Pizza, Inc., d/b/a West Side Pie, and Enterprise 51 Parking, LLC,alleging that Plaintiff was “denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at Defendants’ property,” in violation of the Americans with Disability Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York City Administrative Code, Dkt. 1; WHEREAS to establish constitutional standing, a plaintiff must adequately allege (1) a concrete, particularized, actual, or imminent injury-in-fact; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of such that the injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant;” and (3) it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision from the Court, Lujan v.Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 576 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); 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 a plaintiff bringing a claim pursuant to the ADA has standing to sue for injunctive relief if “(1) the plaintiff allege[s] past injury under the ADA; (2) it [is] reasonable to infer that the discriminatory treatment [will] continue; and (3) it [1s] reasonable to infer, based on the past frequency of plaintiffs visits and the proximity of [defendant’s business] to plaintiff's home, that plaintiff intend[s] to return to the subject location,” Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184, 187-88 (2d Cir. 2013); a plaintiff must plausibly allege “a real and immediate threat of future injury” for his or her complaint to meet the third prong, Calcano v. Swarovski et al., 36 F.4th 68, 75 (2d Cir. 2022) (citation omitted); WHEREAS in Calcano, the Second Circuit held that ‘Plaintiffs’ conclusory, boilerplate allegations” that they were injured by Defendants’ failure to accommodate visually impaired plaintiffs “fail to establish standing,” id. at 71; and WHEREAS the allegations in the Complaint in this action likely fail adequately to allege standing, as they are at least as conclusory as the allegations in the complaints at issue in Calcano. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by no later than Friday, November 21, 2025, Plaintiff file an amended complaint that adequately alleges standing or show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.

SO ORDERED. Vode i — Date: November 4, 2025 VALERIE CAPRONI _ New York, New York United States District Judge