Gomez v. Kieu Hoang Winery, LLC

Background

Andres Gomez filed this action against Kieu Hoang Winery, LLC. The opinion states that Gomez lives in Miami, is legally blind, and uses screen-reader software to use electronic devices. He alleged that he visited the winery’s website in March and August 2021 as a prospective customer, intending to purchase wine, participate in wine tasting, or potentially experience making wine. He alleged that barriers on the website prevented him from successfully using his screen-reader technology.

The court stated that Gomez had filed numerous similar lawsuits in the district against Napa Valley businesses, alleging that their websites were inaccessible to people with vision disabilities. The court identified statements made in other cases indicating that Gomez had no intention of visiting the defendants’ physical offices and that the alleged website inaccessibility was unrelated to a physical location.

The court’s jurisdiction concern

The court cited Ninth Circuit decisions holding that the Americans with Disabilities Act covers actual physical places open to the public and requires some connection between the challenged goods or services and a physical place. Based on Gomez’s statements and positions in similar cases, the court said it appeared there was no basis for an Americans with Disabilities Act claim and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case.

Service issue and order

Gomez filed a motion for administrative relief seeking more time to serve the complaint. He asserted that the service deadline was March 25, 2022. The court said that calculation was incorrect: General Order 56 requires service within 60 days, rather than 90 days, and permits a plaintiff who cannot complete service within 60 days to request an extension before that period expires.

The court ordered Gomez to show cause in writing by April 8, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with General Order 56 and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. If Gomez and his counsel contended that a jurisdictional basis 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 opinion is an order to show cause; it does not state that the case was dismissed or that the motion for administrative relief was granted or denied.