Gomez v. Corro
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-07085
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gomez v. Corro, Judge Illston denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Gomez’s website-accessibility complaint.
Andres Gomez’s disability-access claim against Paulo Corro, Arturo Ramirez, and the other named defendants concerning the accessibility of www.napalisting.com.
What happened
In Gomez v. Corro, Andres Gomez alleged that he is blind and could not use defendants’ real estate website with screen-reader software because of accessibility problems.
The defendants argued that Gomez lacked standing and that the Americans with Disabilities Act did not apply to their website. They also argued that the website did not sell goods. Judge Illston denied the motion to dismiss.
Judge Susan Illston ruled that Gomez’s allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage and that the defendants’ arguments raised factual questions. The defendants may renew those arguments after the facts are more fully developed.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Corro · No. 3:21-cv-07085
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 10, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez alleged that he is blind and uses screen-reader software to access websites and applications. He alleged that Paulo Corro and Arturo Ramirez are real estate agents who operate the website www.napalisting.com and also operate from a physical office open to the public. Gomez alleged that he visited the website in March and July 2021 intending to obtain information about houses for sale, but could not navigate it because of accessibility design problems.
Defendants’ arguments
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, meaning they asked the court to end the case based on the allegations in the complaint. They argued that Gomez lacked standing, that the Americans with Disabilities Act applied to the website only if it had a connection to a physical office, and that there was no violation because the website did not sell properties or other goods. The opinion’s text contains an incomplete portion of the defendants’ explanation of their standing argument.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the defendants’ arguments raised factual questions that were not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. Gomez alleged that he is blind, that the website was inaccessible to visually impaired people, that the inaccessibility denied him use and enjoyment of the defendants’ goods and services, and that the website had a connection to a physical office. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage. It cited Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, regarding the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to a website and application connected to a physical restaurant’s goods and services.
Disposition
The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary and vacated the scheduled hearing. Judge Susan Illston denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The court stated that the defendants may renew their arguments on a fuller factual record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.