Torres v. Farmay, Incorporated

Background

Jesus Torres alleged that he is legally blind and needs screen-reading software to read website content. He alleged that Farmay, Incorporated operates brick-and-mortar locations in San Francisco and a website offering location information, menus, online ordering, and contact options. Torres alleged that the website was not fully accessible to visually impaired consumers and that he encountered multiple access barriers.

Torres filed the case in San Francisco Superior Court, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Farmay removed the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction. Torres then moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that he had not adequately alleged Article III standing. Farmay opposed remand and moved to dismiss.

Standing and Remand

Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show an injury in fact, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision will remedy the injury. Because a private plaintiff’s ADA claim seeks injunctive relief, the plaintiff must also show a real and immediate threat of repeated future injury.

The court focused on Torres’s allegations that he was deterred from patronizing Farmay’s website or brick-and-mortar locations “on particular occasions” and that he could navigate the website if it were made accessible. The court found these allegations conclusory and insufficient to show an actual, concrete intent to return to Farmay’s business. The court characterized them as speculative future intentions that did not establish the likelihood of future harm required for standing.

The court therefore concluded that Torres lacked Article III standing to bring his ADA claim. Because the ADA claim supplied the basis for federal-question jurisdiction, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. It explained that the proper result was to remand the entire case, including the ADA claim, to state court.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Torres’s motion to remand. The case was remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it TERMINATED Farmay’s motion to dismiss as moot. The order did not decide the merits of Torres’s ADA or Unruh Act claims.