Gomez v. Smith

Background

Andres Gomez alleged that he is legally blind and needs screen-reader software to use a computer. He sued Agi Smith, a real-estate agent, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Gomez alleged that he visited Smith’s website in March and July 2021 while seeking information about houses for sale in Northern California. He said the website was not usable with screen-reader software because, among other things, images lacked readable text equivalents and the page had insufficient contrast.

Gomez’s complaint said he was deterred from returning to the website, but it did not say that he sought to visit a physical location or identify a particular public place where Smith provided services. Gomez later asked the court to take notice of portions of Smith’s website listing a physical office address, but the court denied that request because the complaint did not mention the address or allege that Gomez sought to visit the office or another physical location.

Legal standard

Smith moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a party to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Smith made both a facial challenge, arguing that the complaint’s allegations were insufficient, and a factual challenge, disputing facts relevant to jurisdiction. The court addressed the facial challenge and found it sufficient to resolve the motion.

Standing is required for federal-court jurisdiction. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. For an ADA website-accessibility claim, the Ninth Circuit requires a connection, or “nexus,” between the website and a physical place of public accommodation.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Gomez failed to plead the required nexus. Although Smith’s real-estate business concerned physical property and Gomez may have sought information about a physical property, the court said a general or tangential connection to a physical location was not enough. Gomez did not explain what physical place of public accommodation was connected to the website or how the website prevented him from using services or obtaining goods at such a place.

The court also found that Gomez’s general statements that the website connected customers with services offered at physical locations did not identify the relevant location or describe the connection. Because Gomez failed to plead an injury under the ADA, he lacked standing. The court therefore granted Smith’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion as to the ADA claim and did not reach Smith’s factual challenges to jurisdiction.

The court dismissed Gomez’s Unruh Civil Rights Act claim without prejudice. It explained that the only basis for federal jurisdiction over that state-law claim was supplemental jurisdiction, and Gomez did not argue that the court should retain the claim if the ADA claim were dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted Smith’s motion to dismiss. It granted Gomez leave to amend, stating that it was unclear whether the standing problems could be cured. Any amended complaint had to be filed by January 26, 2022. The court also denied Gomez’s request for discovery about whether Smith invited the public to her physical office because discovery could not cure the facial deficiency in the complaint.