Gomez v. David P. Como dba Napa Valley Real and Vineyards

Background

Andres Gomez alleged that he is legally blind and cannot use a computer without screen-reader software. He said he visited a website owned and operated by David P. Como, allegedly doing business as Napa Valley Real Estate and Vineyards, while seeking information about houses for sale in Northern California. Gomez alleged that the website was inaccessible because, among other things, its images lacked text equivalents and its color contrast was too low for him to distinguish background and foreground elements.

Gomez asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Como moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Gomez lacked standing. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Como made both a facial challenge, based on the complaint’s allegations, and factual challenges based on outside evidence.

ADA claim

The court held that Gomez failed to plead an injury sufficient to establish standing for his ADA website-accessibility claim. In the Ninth Circuit, the court explained, a website must have a nexus—a meaningful connection—to a physical place of public accommodation for the ADA to apply. Gomez alleged that the website was connected to physical services, but he did not describe what that connection was or identify the relevant physical place of public accommodation. His complaint also did not allege that he sought to visit a physical location.

The court found that any connection between Como’s real-estate business and physical property was only tangential. That was not enough under the court’s understanding of Ninth Circuit law. Because Gomez did not adequately plead an injury-in-fact, he lacked standing. The court granted Como’s facial challenge and found it unnecessary to decide the factual challenges.

Unruh Act claim and disposition

The Unruh Act claim depended on supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over a state-law claim related to a federal claim. After dismissing the ADA claim, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed it without prejudice.

The court granted Como’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Although it was unclear whether Gomez’s standing problems could be corrected, the court granted him leave to amend. The amended complaint was due within 21 days after the order. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing.