Gomez v. Gates Estates, Inc.

Background

Andres Gomez, who is blind and lives in Miami, sued Gates Estates, Inc., doing business as Vintage Sotheby’s International Realty, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Gates Estates is described as a residential real-estate broker doing business in Napa and operating the website thenapahometeam.com.

Gomez alleged that he visited the website in March and July 2021 intending to obtain information about houses for sale in Northern California. He alleged that the website had design problems that prevented him from navigating it with screen-reader software. He also alleged that he was deterred from returning to the website. The complaint described him as a “tester.”

After a hearing, the court asked Gomez to clarify whether his standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a legally recognized injury—was based solely on wanting to use the website, without intending to use Gates Estates’s services or physical office. Gomez confirmed that he had no present intention to patronize the realtor’s services or visit its physical location. He said his interest was in viewing listings, window-shopping, and following high-end real-estate markets, even though he was unlikely to purchase a listed home in the near term.

ADA standing and injury

Gates Estates moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court relied principally on Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, in which the appeals court held that the ADA applied to an inaccessible website and mobile application because they facilitated access to goods and services at Domino’s physical restaurants. The court also discussed Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., which required a connection between the challenged service and an actual physical place open to the public.

Applying that rule, the court concluded that a website without a connection to the goods or services of a physical public accommodation is not itself a public accommodation or a service of one under the governing appeals-court precedent. A plaintiff therefore must allege and prove that the website’s inaccessibility deterred access to services offered at the defendant’s physical location.

The court held that Gomez had not suffered an ADA injury because he expressly disclaimed any intent or desire to use Gates Estates’s services. The court emphasized that Gomez did not need to show an intent or ability to buy a particular home. It stated that an ADA injury could arise if the website blocked access to another service offered by the broker that required a real-estate license, such as negotiating leases, soliciting buyers or sellers, or handling certain real-estate loans. But Gomez had no interest in engaging any of the business’s services; he sought only access to information on the website. The court therefore found no ADA injury under the theory Gomez chose to pursue.

State-law claim and disposition

The complaint also asserted a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because the court dismissed the federal ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it said dismissal of the supplemental state-law claim was mandatory.

The court found that amendment would be futile because Gomez had chosen to proceed on the theory that he could sue solely as a website tester without showing an intent to use Gates Estates’s services. The court dismissed the case. It did not address Gates Estates’s other arguments for dismissal, including the relevance of Gomez’s economic condition to standing. Judge William Alsup signed the order on February 15, 2022.