Following is an excerpt:
In Castillo, plaintiff, a King’s County resident, who asserted that she has diabetes, alleged that she was denied access to defendant’s Boston theater because of her disability. Specifically, she asserted that “in or around December 2018,” she visited the defendant’s website, allegedly to purchase a ticket to a performance; however, after she saw the theater’s general policy prohibiting patrons from bringing outside food into the theater, she did not do so. Plaintiff contended that because she required specific snacks with her at all times, defendant’s policy “deterred” her from visiting the theater. Notably, she did not allege that she ever contacted the theater to ask whether it would modify its policy. Tellingly, this was notwithstanding the fact that the home page of the theater’s website contained an express invitation for visitors to contact the theater with any accessibility questions. If the general nature of these allegations sounds familiar to you it is because over the past eighteen months similar claims were filed by the plaintiff and/or her counsel in New York state and federal courts against a significant number of theaters, arenas, and stadiums.
The court dismissed the complaint in full on subject matter jurisdiction grounds, holding that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her federal, state, and city claims because she failed to plead that she suffered any injury, or that she would suffer any future harm. The court reinforced that the elements of standing “are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case.”