Merrell v. Tapestry, Inc.

Background

Richard Paul Merrell’s second amended complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that parts of Tapestry’s website did not work with his screen reader. In particular, the screen reader did not announce when items were added to his online shopping cart, and it could not announce the contents of the website’s “Pickup Availability” window. He alleged that these problems prevented him from completing online purchases and using Tapestry’s “Pick Up In Store” service at nearby physical stores, including a store at Promenade Temecula in Temecula, California.

Tapestry moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California. The opinion notes that Vivian Salazar had originally filed the class action and that the court later allowed Merrell to replace her as the named plaintiff. The court’s order concerns venue and does not decide the ultimate merits of Merrell’s claims.

Reasoning

Section 1404(a) permits a federal district court to transfer a civil case to another district where it could have been brought when convenience for the parties and witnesses supports transfer. The court held that Merrell could have brought the action in the Central District under the rule allowing suit where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

The court concluded that the material events occurred in the Central District. Merrell used the website while residing in Riverside County, and his alleged inability to use the website to arrange in-store pickup concerned stores near his residence, including the Temecula store. The court also found that Tapestry identified important store employees in the Central District who could testify about accessibility policies and the “Pick Up In Store” service. Their testimony could bear on whether Merrell could establish the required connection between the website services and Tapestry’s physical stores.

The court recognized that some witnesses involved in the website’s design and functionality were elsewhere, including New York and New Jersey, but found that travel to the Central District was no less convenient for those witnesses than travel to the Northern District. It also found the Central District more convenient for Merrell, Tapestry, and both parties’ lawyers, and concluded that the Central District had a stronger local interest and offered easier access to relevant evidence. Court congestion and judicial-economy considerations did not significantly affect the analysis because the case was still at the pleading stage and Merrell had not yet moved for class certification.

Ruling

The court held that Tapestry met its burden of showing that the balance of convenience favored transfer. Tapestry’s motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) was GRANTED, and the Clerk was directed to transfer the case to the Central District of California. Judge Rita F. Lin did not rule on whether Merrell proved his Americans with Disabilities Act or Unruh Civil Rights Act claims.