@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document 20-cv-00854
AI Analysis
Summary: The court denies Schulte's motion to dismiss, concluding that Schulte has not demonstrated a plausible violation of the JSSA. The court found that the violation was technical and did not have a substantial effect. The case will proceed as a result of this order.
Significance: This document is a court order denying a motion to dismiss, indicating that the case will proceed. It reveals the court's reasoning on the substantiality of a JSSA violation.
Key Topics:
JSSA violation
motion to dismiss
substantial violation
Key People:
- Schulte - plaintiff or movant
- Paul A. Crotty - United States District Judge
Full Text
latter point, it is undisputed that the alternate mailing address defect actually led to an increase of representation of the very minority groups that Schulte contends were underrepresented. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 17.) Thus empiricism precludes the notion that the violation was “substantial” in nature. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 870 (explaining that the inquiry for whether a violation is substantial is the “extent of its effect on the wheels”); see also Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *11 (rejecting same argument on the ground that it was merely a technical violation). In sum, the Court concludes that Schulte has not demonstrated a plausible violation of the JSSA.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Dated: New York, New York March 24, 2021 SO ORDERED
PAUL A. CROTTY
United States District Judge