Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC

Background

Felipe Fernandez, who is legally blind, sued Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and other provisions of New York’s Civil Rights Law. In his First Amended Complaint, Fernandez alleged that he could not purchase Buffalo Jackson’s “Thompson leather moto jacket” on April 15, 2024, because the company’s e-commerce website was inaccessible to blind users. He alleged that the website contained several accessibility barriers and said he would return to buy the jacket if the website became compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Motions and jurisdictional issue

Buffalo Jackson moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Fernandez lacked Article III standing. Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete, personal injury that the court can address. In an Americans with Disabilities Act case, the court explained that the plaintiff must show an injury under the statute, a reasonable basis to infer that the discriminatory treatment will continue, and a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff intends to return to the place of public accommodation.

Buffalo Jackson argued that Fernandez had not plausibly alleged an actual injury or a genuine intent to return. It also requested jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Separately, Buffalo Jackson moved under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that its website was not a “place of public accommodation” covered by Title III. The court stated that it would address that merits argument, if necessary, only after resolving standing.

Court’s analysis

The court assumed for purposes of the initial pleading stage that Fernandez’s allegations were sufficient to plead standing. It nevertheless found substantial reasons to test those allegations through further proceedings. The court relied on Fernandez’s filing of dozens of Americans with Disabilities Act cases over the prior twelve months, the substantially identical template used in his complaints, and allegations that he attempted to buy many different products from different websites within short periods.

The court also identified tensions within Fernandez’s allegations about Buffalo Jackson’s products and website. Although he described Buffalo Jackson’s reputation, products, and the specific jacket in considerable detail, he also alleged that he could not understand or properly interact with the website. In addition, his complaint emphasized an interest in returning for a leather jacket, while his opposition brief partly relied on an interest in clothing for his child, a reason not stated in the complaint. The court emphasized that being an Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” or filing many cases does not by itself eliminate standing; its concern was the overall pattern and the inconsistencies in the standing allegations.

Ruling

The court granted Buffalo Jackson’s motion only to the extent that Buffalo Jackson could take jurisdictional discovery and the court could hold an evidentiary hearing concerning whether Fernandez suffered an injury connected to his alleged attempt to buy the jacket and whether he genuinely intended to return to Buffalo Jackson’s website. The permitted discovery could include Fernandez’s deposition and a forensic examination of the devices he used to search for or access the website.

The court set May 14, 2025, as the discovery deadline and scheduled the evidentiary hearing for May 28, 2025. It denied without prejudice Buffalo Jackson’s request to obtain discovery about Fernandez’s counsel’s pre-lawsuit visits to the website, while allowing Buffalo Jackson to raise that request again if appropriate later. The opinion did not decide the standing issue after an evidentiary hearing and did not reach Buffalo Jackson’s separate argument about whether the website is a covered place of public accommodation.