Abadi v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

── Abadi v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General 25-38-cv Abadi v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges, ERIC R. KOMITEE, District Judge. * _____________________________________ Aaron Abadi, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 25-38 * Judge Eric R. Komitee, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: AARON ABADI, pro se, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: NICHOLAS P. CHRYSANTHEM, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C., New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jennifer L. Rochon, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Aaron Abadi, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Greyhound”). Abadi sued Greyhound under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986, New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), and New 2 Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), asserting that Greyhound failed to accommodate, during the COVID-19 pandemic, his disability that impeded his wearing a mask. Greyhound moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Abadi’s complaint. The district court granted the motion, dismissing Abadi’s complaint for lack of standing, as time-barred, and for failure to state a claim. Abadi v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 23-cv-07645 (JLR), 2024 WL 5155601 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2024). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal. “We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for lack of standing[,] construing the complaint in plaintiff’s favor and accepting as true all material factual allegations contained therein.” Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68, 74 (2d Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Mazzei v. The Money