S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-07297
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L-Nutra Inc.source ↗ filed by Gottlieb & Associates · Judge Vernon Speede Broderick · No. 1:26-cv-07297 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾ADA accessibility claims split in comparables: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs failed to prove proposed modifications were effective, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations for plaintiffs. Outcome hinges heavily on specificity of alleged barriers and remedy feasibility. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. (2d Cir.) — controls SDNY-adjacent circuit law; plaintiff bears burden to show requested accommodation is effective, a common failure point in ADA website/service cases. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a concrete, provably effective modification, as in Lowell v. Lyft. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5K–$25K Small, non-analogous comparable set (mostly non-ADA-website cases); no settlement or verdict data specific to this defendant or fact pattern. · grounded in 6 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-27 | $5K–$25K rough EV |