MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Deborah Laufer, a Florida resident and an individual with a disability, originally brought this action against Defendant 7 Hills Hotel, LLC asserting claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12181, et seq. and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §296(2)(a). (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owns a hotel known as Americas Best Value Inn, that is obligated to comply with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e), and that Defendant maintains an online reservation system that fails to meet these requirements. (Id. 3, 9, 11, 14). Plaintiff now moves for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 22). Defendant does not oppose dismissal of this action, but requests that the Court dismiss with prejudice, declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant as this is the second action Plaintiff has filed against it, and impose costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. (Dkt. Nos. 23, 26). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted and Defendant’s requests are denied. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff previously sued Defendant, and more than sixty others, asserting each defendant’s online reservation system violates the ADA and NYSHRL. See Complaint, Laufer v. 7 Hills Hotel, LLC (Laufer v. 7 Hills Hotel I), No. 20-cv-00357 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020), ECF No. 1; see also Laufer v. Laxmi & Sons, LLC (Laufer I), No. 1:19-cv-01501, 2021 WL 2525153, at *1, 2021 U.S. Dist, LEXIS 117554, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. June 14, 2021). On June 14, 2021, the Court dismissed, without prejudice, all of Plaintiff’s pending actions, including Laufer v. 7 Hills Hotel I, finding that Plaintiff’s ADA “tester” status was insufficient to show, and that Plaintiff had otherwise failed to allege, Article III standing. Laufer I, 2021 WL 2525153, at *8-9, 2021 U.S. Dist, LEXIS 117554, at *24-26. Plaintiff commenced the current action against Defendant on January 20, 2022. (Dkt. No. 1). While the factual allegations and legal claims in this case are nearly identical to those in Laufer v. 7 Hills Hotel I, Plaintiff has added allegations as to standing. (See generally Dkt. No. 1). On April 27, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric ordered that this case be referred to mandatory mediation. (Dkt. No. 14). Plaintiff, citing to the costs and time associated with interstate travel, moved to attend mediation via videoconference. (Dkt. No. 16, at 1). In response, Defendant offered to postpone mediation “so it can coincide with Plaintiff’s travel plans” to the Northern District of New York. (Dkt. No. 17, 5). On May 19, 2022, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion noting that the “the crux of Plaintiffs [sic] case involves [her] desire to travel to multiple areas located within the Northern District of New York,” but that “the Court would entertain an extension of the mediation deadline” so that any mediation could coincide with Plaintiff’s travel plans. (Dkt. No. 18). According to Plaintiff, “[i]mmediately” after the Magistrate Judge denied her motion to attend the mediation remotely, Plaintiff’s counsel “sought and obtained defense counsel’s consent to dismiss this case.” (Dkt. No. 22-1, at 1). However, on May 27, 2022, “Defense counsel demanded that Plaintiff pay…$500 to dismiss this case.” (Id.). Plaintiff refused and on June 2, 2022, filed the present motion for voluntary dismissal, seeking dismissal without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 22). In its response, Defendant states that while it: certainly desires discontinuance of this action, based upon the pattern of the Plaintiff in initiating repeated filings, Defendant is reasonably concerned that upon the dismissal of this action, the Plaintiff will immediately or very soon, thereafter, commence another action seeking the same or similar relief against the Defendant based upon the same, or similar allegations. (Dkt. No. 23, 11). For those reasons, Defendant seeks dismissal with prejudice as well as an order labeling Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and awarding nominal attorney’s fees “to offset the attorney’s fees incurred by Defendant in this action.” (Dkt. No. 23,
