UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 24-cv-7586 (AS) -against- ORDER TWO BUDS ENTERPRISE, Defendant.

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Primitivo Robles has moved for default judgment in this case. Dkt. 19. In the complaint, Robles alleges that defendant is liable under the ADA and its state- and city-law counterparts because defendant’s website is not accessible to visually impaired users like Robles. On a motion for default judgment, the Court “accepts as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint but must still determine whether those allegations establish a ‘legal basis’ for liability.” Winegard v. Crain Commce’ns,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (citation omitted). As the Court noted in its October 8, 2024 Order, Dkt. 5, it finds persuasive the analysis in Winegard v. Newsday LLC,

(E.D.N.Y. 2021) regarding the scope and applicability of the ADA. Yet plaintiff's default-judgment briefing doesn’t address why Winegard doesn’t foreclose the plaintiff’s claims or why the decision shouldn’t be followed by this Court. By April 7, 2025, plaintiff is hereby ordered to file a supplemental brief addressing these issues and defendant’s liability under the statutes at issue in this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2025 New York, New York

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN United States District Judge