Gomez v. The Magliocco Group Inc.

Background

Andres Gomez alleged that he is blind and needs a screen reader to use a computer. He claimed that the design of The Magliocco Group Inc.’s website prevented him from using it to access the company’s real estate services. His complaint asserted a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a related claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The ADA claim

The court applied binding Ninth Circuit precedent holding that, for purposes of Title III, a public accommodation must be an actual physical place where goods or services are open to the public. For a website-based claim, the plaintiff must plausibly allege a connection, or “nexus,” between the website and a physical place of public accommodation.

The complaint did not identify that connection. It generally alleged that The Magliocco Group operated goods or services from a physical location in California and asserted that the website connected customers to land-based goods and services. But it did not identify what physical location the company operated, such as a real estate office that customers could visit. It also did not allege that the private homes for sale listed on the website were public accommodations under the ADA.

Gomez asked the court to take judicial notice of the company’s website, which listed two addresses. The court explained that the existence of those addresses, even if considered, did not establish a sufficient connection to a public accommodation. The complaint did not say whether the locations were offices open only to employees or public-facing locations connecting customers to the company’s goods and services.

Unruh Act claim

The court held that Gomez’s Unruh Act claim failed for the same reason because, as Gomez conceded, it was based entirely on his ADA claim.

Motion and disposition

The Magliocco Group moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that failure to allege a valid cause of action generally does not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction. Instead, when a complaint fails to allege a legally recognizable claim, dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a claim.

The court therefore treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and granted it on that basis. It held that the complaint did not plausibly state a Title III ADA claim because it did not allege a nexus between the website and a physical place of public accommodation. The court denied Gomez’s request for jurisdictional discovery as futile. The order granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice and allowed Gomez to file an amended complaint within 21 days.