Brown v. McKinley Mall, LLC

3 Citing cases

  1. MRG Constr. Corp. v. CBS Serv.

    3:23-CV-241-MGG (N.D. Ind. May. 8, 2024)

    In short, a more complete, rather than piecemeal, presentation of MRG's breach of contract claim would likely facilitate the Court's resolution of that claim.See, e.g.,Brown v. McKinley Mall, LLC, No. 15-CV-1044-FPG-LGF, 2018 WL 2289823, at *6 n.8 (W.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (agreeing that “the analysis of the alleged [ADA] violations and proposed solution” should be examined “as a whole,” and that “parsing out individual claims” in a “disjointed” manner on a motion for partial summary judgment is ultimately a waste of judicial resources”). 2. Underinclusive and skeletal presentations of arguments

  2. Meisner v. 607 10th Ave. Props.

    23 Civ. 506 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y. May. 3, 2024)

    Whether further modifications would be prohibitively expensive or structurally infeasible given the building's age and layout also calls for opinion testimony requiring specialized knowledge. See, e.g., Brown v. McKinley Mall, LLC, No. 15 Civ. 1044, 2018 WL 2289823, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (noting that a proposed expert was “not an engineer, architect, or contractor licensed in the State of New York and is therefore not necessarily qualified to opine on the cost of removing barriers” from the premises at issue).

  3. Laufer v. Laxmi & Sons, LLC

    1:19-CV-1501 (BKS/ML) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that "Plaintiff has filed approximately 60 nearly identical cases against different defendants in the Northern District of New York"

    Following these cases, District Courts in this Circuit have readily found standing where plaintiffs credibly allege a "dual motivation" for their past and future visits to Defendant's public accommodation, i.e., a desire to both test the property for ADA compliance and avail themselves of the goods and services provided. See, e.g., Panarese v. Sell It Social, LLC, No. 19-cv-3211, 2020 WL 4506730, at *2, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119002, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2020) (finding the plaintiffs had standing to challenge access barriers on the defendant's website where they alleged a "dual motivation" for visiting the website: to "serve as 'testers' for the foreseeable future" and to "genuinely . . . avail themselves of the goods and services offered on the Website"); Brown v. McKinley Mall, LLC, No. 15-cv-1044, 2018 WL 2289823, at *2-4, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83477, at *5-13 (W.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (finding ADA tester and serial litigant had standing where he was motivated to return to the defendant's mall both as a tester and to avail himself of shopping and dining options when he attended nearby sporting events); Harty v. Bull's Head Realty, No. 11-cv-01760, 2013 WL 1131625, at *3-5, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37193, at *9-15 (D. Conn. Mar. 18, 2013) (declining to rule on whether tester status alone is sufficient for standing, as ADA tester had otherwise pled facts sufficient to demonstrate an intent to return to the defendant's property). These courts have not resolved the question of whether a pure tester, without such a dual motivation, could meet the Article III standing requirements.