Gomez v. Skip Keyser Realty, Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-07409
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gomez v. Skip Keyser Realty, Judge Illston ordered Gomez to explain why his website-accessibility case should not be dismissed.
The order directly affected Andres Gomez and his counsel by requiring a written response and, if they asserted a jurisdictional basis, a sworn declaration; it also vacated the scheduled case-management conference.
What happened
In Gomez v. Skip Keyser Realty, Inc., Andres Gomez sued a real-estate company, alleging that its website was inaccessible to people with vision disabilities. The court noted that Gomez lives in Miami and has filed similar lawsuits involving Napa Valley real-estate defendants.
The court focused on statements Gomez and his lawyer made in related cases that he did not intend to visit the defendants’ physical offices and that the website barriers were unrelated to a physical location. The court explained that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a website claim must be connected to a physical place open to the public.
The court did not dismiss the case at this stage. Judge Susan Illston ordered Gomez to show in writing by April 8, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of authority to hear it, and required a sworn declaration if Gomez and his counsel claimed there was a factual basis for the claim. The court also vacated the April 7 initial case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Skip Keyser Realty, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-07409
- Susan Illston
- Apr. 5, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez sued Skip Keyser Realty, Inc. over alleged inaccessibility of the defendant’s website to people with vision disabilities. The court stated that Gomez lives in Miami and has filed numerous similar lawsuits in the Northern District of California against Napa Valley real-estate defendants.
The court cited statements made by Gomez and his counsel in related cases. Gomez had stated that he enjoyed browsing real-estate websites but had no present intention of visiting a defendant’s physical office because visiting in person would be less useful than using the website or telephone. In another related case, his counsel filed a sworn declaration stating that a joint site inspection was unnecessary because the alleged website inaccessibility was a policy violation unrelated to a physical location.
Court’s analysis
The court cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that the Americans with Disabilities Act covers actual physical places where goods or services are open to the public and requires a connection between the challenged good or service and an actual physical place. It also cited a prior Northern District of California decision stating that a plaintiff who alleges no connection between website barriers and a physical location does not have an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
Based on Gomez’s statements and positions in nearly identical cases, the court stated that it appeared there was no basis for an Americans with Disabilities Act claim and, therefore, that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear the case.
Order
The court ordered Gomez to show cause in writing by April 8, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. If Gomez and his counsel contended that subject-matter jurisdiction existed, the court required Gomez to file a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating the factual basis for the Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
The court did not state that it was dismissing the case in this order. It also vacated the April 7 initial case-management conference. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.