Carrico v. Duo Wen, Inc.

Background

Joyce Carrico filed a proposed class action against Duo Wen, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Carrico alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and that, on multiple occasions, most recently on September 22, 2022, she could not access Duo Wen’s website, lovesparkle.life, to purchase products.

According to the complaint, the website had several accessibility barriers, including images without alternative text, missing text for title frames, problems with keyboard navigation and screen readers, improperly read drop-down menus and forms, and problems reading languages other than English. Carrico alleged that these barriers denied her and similarly situated people equal access to the website and the products offered there.

Duo Wen moved to dismiss Carrico’s claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages, including statutory and punitive damages. Duo Wen argued that it did not own or operate the website and that Duo Wen Pte Ltd. was the appropriate defendant because the website’s terms and conditions identified that entity as the owner and operator. Carrico disputed this account, arguing that the entities were the same or related and alleging that the website’s ownership information had changed over time.

Judicial Notice

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court generally considers the complaint’s allegations and certain documents attached to or incorporated into the complaint. A court may also consider a document that is integral to the complaint—meaning that the complaint relies substantially on the document—but only when there is no material dispute about the document’s authenticity or accuracy.

The court found that the website was integral to Carrico’s complaint because she identified it as the alleged public accommodation and described her experience using it. But the court also found that Carrico had sufficiently disputed the authenticity and accuracy of the website ownership materials. The parties’ evidence directly conflicted about the website’s ownership and the changes to its terms and conditions. The court therefore declined to take judicial notice of the materials for purposes of deciding the motion.

The court also stated that a declaration from Duo Wen’s president could not be considered because it made factual assertions that were not integral to the complaint and were not otherwise appropriate to consider at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Adequacy of the Claims

After excluding the disputed extraneous materials, the court considered whether Carrico had adequately pleaded claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court held that she had plausibly alleged facts supporting the required elements: that she was disabled, that Duo Wen owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation, and that Duo Wen discriminated against her within the meaning of those laws.

Disposition

The court denied Duo Wen’s motion to dismiss.