Fernandez v. USA

Background

Felipe Fernandez alleged that he is visually impaired and encountered barriers when he tried multiple times to use Scanpan USA, Inc.’s website to shop for cookware. He specifically wanted to purchase a classic 9.5-inch stir-fry pan. He alleged that the website was not compatible with screen-access programs and identified barriers including broken links.

Fernandez asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought damages, an injunction requiring Scanpan to make the website comply with the ADA, attorney’s fees, and relief on behalf of an undefined class. The opinion also states that Fernandez had filed approximately 62 similar civil actions in the Southern District of New York during the preceding two years.

Motion to Dismiss

Scanpan moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Scanpan argued that the ADA claim presented the same issue addressed in the court’s earlier decision in Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc.: whether the website was a place of public accommodation covered by Title III. Scanpan also asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the New York City Human Rights Law claim if the ADA claim was dismissed.

Fernandez acknowledged that the case was not substantively different from Sookul but argued that the court did not have to follow that decision. He relied on other district court decisions and Department of Justice guidance concerning website accessibility. The court found those arguments unpersuasive and stated that the guidance did not establish that every website is automatically a public accommodation under the ADA.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court incorporated the legal analysis from Sookul and concluded that Fernandez’s ADA claim was not viable for the reasons identified in that decision. It stated that there were no substantive differences in the complaint or briefing that required a different result. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim.

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York City Human Rights Law claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims. The court relied on the dismissal of all claims over which it had original jurisdiction and concluded that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts favored declining jurisdiction. The opinion also states that Fernandez did not contest this part of Scanpan’s motion and therefore conceded the argument.

The court denied Fernandez further leave to amend the ADA claim because it concluded that any amendment would be futile. In its conclusion, the court stated that Scanpan’s motion to dismiss was granted, Fernandez’s ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and his New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Scanpan and close the case. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order on September 29, 2025.