Dobbs v. Metropolitan Transit Authority ( 2020 )

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED Dpoc#: DATE FILED; 9/11/20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee eee eee eee eee eee HX ALEXANDRIA HOBBS AND FRANK PERINO, _: Plaintiff. antl, 1:17-cv-08199 (ALC) ~against- OPINION AND ORDER METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY et . al, ° Defendants. □ ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee eee eee eee eee eee HX ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: Alexandria Hobbs and Frank Perino brought this action against Defendants the New York City Transit Authority, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, Advance Transit Co. Inc., and John Doe 2, claiming violations of Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State Human Rights Law. (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)). Defendants separately moved to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF Nos. 90, 94). Those motions are DENIED. Plaintiffs’ claims are based in part on Defendants’ policies regarding the transportation of service animals on Access-A-Ride vehicles in New York, as well as the accessibility of those policies to individuals who are visually impaired. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs do not make clear if such policies exist, what such policies provide, and the forms these policies are provided in. At this stage of the litigation, the Court cannot look beyond the four corners of the Complaint and attached documents for facts. See Graham Hanson Design LLC vy. 511 9th LLC, No. 10 Civ. 5493, 2011 WL 744801, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2011) (declining to consider materials extrinsic to the “four corners of the Complaint”). Because this case cannot be resolved without making factual determinations about these policies, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss must be denied. Although this issue was not briefed by the parties, the Court also notes that this case may raise standing problems given the allegations of a past injury that potentially may be remedied by the provision of accessible policies to plaintiffs. See Muhammad vy. Annucci, et al., No. 19-cv- 3528, 2020 WL 1303571 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020). The parties should be prepared to address this issue going forward. The parties should submit a status report in this matter by September 24, 2020 stating how they would like to proceed. SO ORDERED. [Arde / (ke ) Dated: September 10, 2020 New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge