Zelvin v. H Heritage, Inc.

Background

Lynn Zelvin, who is visually impaired and legally blind, requires screen-reading software to read website content. He visited H Heritage, Inc.’s website on three occasions to try to purchase a leather wallet. He alleged that accessibility barriers—including missing navigation links, inadequate labels, inaccessible drop-down menus, missing alternative text for graphics, and a requirement that transactions be completed with a mouse—prevented him from completing the purchase.

Zelvin sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. H Heritage moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Zelvin lacked standing, and Rule 12(b)(2), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the company.

Standing

The court held that Zelvin plausibly alleged an injury sufficient for constitutional standing. The court found that his allegations supported three points: he suffered a past injury when the website prevented him from independently using it; the barriers would likely continue to interfere with his attempts to purchase a wallet; and he plausibly intended to return to the website after the barriers were fixed. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).

Personal Jurisdiction

The court found that Zelvin had not sufficiently alleged that H Heritage had conducted business in New York under New York’s long-arm statute. The website allowed purchases and was therefore interactive, but the court stated that accessibility from New York alone was insufficient. Zelvin had not provided evidence that New York customers had actually purchased products from H Heritage or that H Heritage had otherwise purposefully sought New York business.

The court nevertheless ordered limited jurisdictional discovery. It reasoned that H Heritage’s alleged accessibility barriers prevented Zelvin from completing a New York purchase and that H Heritage was the only source of information about its transactions with New York consumers. The discovery was limited to whether H Heritage had conducted business in New York.

Disposition

The court denied H Heritage’s motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery by November 8, 2024. The court stated that H Heritage could renew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by December 6, 2024, if it had a good-faith basis to do so. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 10 and 13.