Velazquez v. The Spice & Tea Exchange Distribution, LLC

Background

Bryan Velazquez, who is visually impaired and legally blind, sued The Spice & Tea Exchange, LLC, alleging that its website violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that he visited the website twice in 2022 intending to buy an organic green tea gift box but could not use it because it lacked accessibility features, including alternative text. He also alleged that he intended to return if the website became accessible. Velazquez sought injunctive and declaratory relief, class certification, damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees.

Motion to dismiss

The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that Velazquez lacked standing because he had not adequately shown that he intended to return to the website. It also argued that the case was moot because the website had become compliant with accessibility standards. The defendant separately argued that the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the New York City claims.

Standing

The court concluded that Velazquez had adequately alleged standing to seek injunctive relief. It found that his allegations described a past injury caused by the website’s accessibility barriers, supported an inference that the barriers could continue, and plausibly showed an intent to return. The court relied on his allegations that he had visited the website twice, was interested in its organic and distinctive tea products, and would return if the website were made accessible. The court also concluded that the number of other disability-access lawsuits Velazquez had filed did not, at this stage, defeat standing.

Mootness

The court rejected the argument that the case was moot. A defendant claiming that voluntary changes have made a case moot must provide strong evidence that the alleged violation cannot reasonably recur and that its effects have been completely eliminated. The defendant submitted affidavits and reports from accessibility vendors stating that the website complied with Website Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, level AA. The court found those materials insufficient because they did not adequately explain the audit methods, the auditors’ qualifications, the specific findings, or the steps taken to maintain compliance. The court also noted that one report was not provided and that the plaintiff’s diagnostic report, although lacking important information, did not relieve the defendant of its burden.

New York City claims

The court concluded that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Velazquez’s New York City Human Rights Law claims because they were related to the federal disability claims and were governed by the same standing requirements. Because Velazquez had standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court found that the New York City claims should not be dismissed at that stage.

Recommendation and next steps

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended that the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction be DENIED. The recommendation was addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe. The parties were given 14 days to file objections, and the opinion states that failing to object timely would waive the right to object and preclude appellate review. The text provided does not state whether Judge Gardephe later adopted or rejected the recommendation.