Alcazar v. Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Restaurants, Inc.

Background

Juan Alcazar filed a proposed class action against Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Restaurants, Inc. and Landry’s Payroll, Inc. He alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Alcazar alleged that he is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reading software to read website content.

According to the complaint, Bubba Gump’s website had barriers for screen-reader users, including missing alternative text for images, empty links, redundant links, and missing alternative text for linked images. Alcazar alleged that these barriers prevented blind users from accessing the same content as sighted users, including restaurant locations and hours. He sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Motion to dismiss

Bubba Gump moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bubba Gump argued that Alcazar’s claims were moot because it had contracted with AudioEye, a third-party website-accessibility specialist, and AudioEye reported that the website complied with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1.

Alcazar submitted declarations from himself and an accessibility consultant, Kannan Arumugam. They identified continuing website issues, including missing headings, non-descriptive links, images without equivalent alternative text, non-unique landmark names, and missing alternative text in certain website sections. They opined that the website did not comply with WCAG 2.1. Bubba Gump submitted a supplemental AudioEye report disputing those conclusions and stating that some identified issues did not violate WCAG 2.1 or involved the more demanding AAA criteria rather than the AA criteria.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a court may ordinarily consider evidence outside the complaint when deciding a factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenge. But that approach is improper when the jurisdictional question and the substance of the claim are so closely connected that deciding jurisdiction would require resolving factual issues about the merits.

The court concluded that the competing evidence created a genuine factual dispute about whether the alleged website barriers had been remedied. Because the existence of accessibility barriers was relevant both to jurisdiction and to the substance of Alcazar’s ADA claim, the court held that resolving the dispute before discovery was inappropriate. The court stated that whether the website violated WCAG 2.1 was more appropriately addressed on summary judgment or at trial.

Disposition

The court denied Bubba Gump’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It ordered Alcazar to file an amended complaint including allegations from his opposition that were not clearly stated in the original complaint, with the amended complaint due by August 24, 2020. The court also stated that, by agreement of the parties, Landry’s Payroll, Inc. was dismissed from the action. The court did not decide whether Bubba Gump’s website ultimately violated the ADA or state law.