Gomez v. Corro

Background

In an earlier order, the court directed Andres Gomez to show whether the parties had complied with General Order 56’s requirement for a joint site inspection. Gomez’s counsel responded with a sworn declaration stating that an inspection was unnecessary because the alleged inaccessibility involved defendants’ websites and was a policy violation unrelated to a physical location.

The opinion concerns an Americans with Disabilities Act claim based on alleged barriers to defendants’ websites. The court stated that Ninth Circuit precedent requires a connection between an allegedly inaccessible website and an actual physical place where goods or services are available. The court also took judicial notice of a declaration Gomez filed in a prior related proceeding, in which he stated that he lived in Miami, Florida, browsed real-estate websites featuring homes in Napa Valley, and had no present intention of visiting the defendant’s physical office because using the website or telephone would be more useful to him. The court said this case similarly involved browsing websites for houses for sale in Northern California.

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 jurisdiction existed, the court required Gomez to file a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the factual basis for the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It required his counsel to file a declaration under penalty of perjury, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, explaining the apparent inconsistency between counsel’s March 30 declaration and an assertion that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also vacated the April 7, 2022 case-management conference. This order did not itself dismiss the case. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.