UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X STACEY MERCER, : Plaintiff, : 24-CV-3832 (VEC) -against- : : ORDER : SUPREME COMPANY I, LLC, a New York : limited liability company, and YORKK DELI & : GROCERY, INC. d/b/a York Food & Convenience : Store, a New York Corporation, : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on August 29, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause explaining that the allegations in the Complaint in this action likely fail adequately to allege standing, and ordering the Plaintiff to file a motion, including a memorandum of law and any supporting exhibits or declarations, for leave to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges standing or show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing, Dkt. 16; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Plaintiff’s request, Dkt. 17, the Court extended the deadline to respond to the Order to Show Cause to September 12, 2024, Dkt. 18; WHEREAS on September 12, 2024, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause, and instead filed yet another letter requesting that the Court either extend the deadline to respond to the Order to Show Cause or enter a conditional order of dismissal, Dkt. 19; 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,

(2d Cir. 1994); Cent. States SE & SW Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.,

(2d Cir. 2005); and WHEREAS Plaintiff has failed to allege standing adequately because the Complaint fails to indicate whether Plaintiff visited the subject location on more than one occasion or articulate, in non-conclusory terms, the location of Defendant’s business relative to her home, and therefore it is not “reasonable to infer, based on the past frequency of plaintiffs visits and 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.,

(2d Cir. 2013). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time or conditional dismissal is DENIED this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. 19 and to terminate the case.

SO ORDERED. □ Ven ey Date: September 16, 2024 VALERIE CAPRONI New York, New York United States District Judge