Gomez v. Trinitas Cellars, LLC

Background

Andres Gomez alleged that he is legally blind and uses screen-reader software to navigate websites. He alleged that he visited Trinitas Cellars’s website in March and August 2021 as a prospective customer seeking information about wines sold at the vineyard and wine-tasting tours. According to the complaint, the website had three types of accessibility problems: images lacked text equivalents readable by screen-reader software, script elements lacked functional text, and the contrast between background and foreground elements was too low.

Gomez alleged claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He asserted that the website’s barriers denied him full and equal access to Trinitas and deterred him from returning to the website.

The motion to dismiss

Trinitas moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Trinitas argued that Gomez had not alleged that the website barriers impeded his access to the winery’s goods and services, had not adequately alleged how the barriers were inaccessible, and had not alleged a sufficient injury. Trinitas also argued that Gomez had not alleged an intent to return to the winery rather than merely to its website.

The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the Americans with Disabilities Act can apply to websites and applications connected to a physical place of public accommodation. The court rejected Trinitas’s broader argument that barriers preventing a person from gaining information, rather than directly impeding access to a physical location, are never actionable. The court explained that information-gathering may support a claim when it has a connection to the physical location.

Reason for dismissal

The court nevertheless concluded that Gomez’s complaint did not adequately allege how the specific website barriers deprived him of full and equal enjoyment of, or equal access to, the winery. The court noted that the complaint did not explain whether the contrast problem prevented Gomez from reading the webpage, whether the images were important to the website experience, or whether the unidentified script elements affected his ability to read the webpage. The court also found that Gomez had not alleged how the website problems affected access to the physical winery, which also mattered to whether his claims were legally cognizable under the governing precedent.

The court stated that these pleading problems affected both its standing analysis and its failure-to-state-a-claim analysis. Because it granted leave to amend, it did not decide at that stage whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted Trinitas Cellars, LLC’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 20 days.