DOJ-OGR-00002841.jpg

CaGade20-rr-0028540APAC DOmourTEaigS Fikedd22e21 PaRagé 26 20 20 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 Por the forgoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED March 24, 2021 Va A Aa; PAUL A. CROTTY United States District Judge 20 DOJ-OGR-00002841