Gomez v. Lesti Real Estate, Inc.

Background

Andres Gomez, who is visually impaired and resides in Miami, Florida, alleged that Lesti Real Estate, Inc. operated a website listing houses for sale in Napa, California. He claimed that accessibility-design problems prevented him from successfully navigating the website with screen-reader software. His complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act.

Motion and standing issue

Lesti Real Estate moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Gomez asked for an opportunity to challenge the defendant’s factual assertion that it had no physical location through discovery.

The court stated that ADA standing requires a plaintiff to show either that website barriers deterred access to goods or services at a physical location, or that the plaintiff suffered an injury and intended to return to a noncompliant physical facility. The court also explained that the ADA covers actual physical places open to the public and that a website must have a connection to such a place to support an ADA claim.

Gomez alleged that the defendant provided services from a physical location in California and that the website connected customers with the defendant’s physical services. He also alleged that the website’s accessibility problems deterred him from returning to the website and made it difficult or impossible to find information about houses for sale. The court found that these allegations did not state that he was deterred from accessing services at a physical location or that he intended to return to one. The court also observed that the services described in the complaint appeared to be services of the website itself rather than services of a physical place of public accommodation.

Order

Rather than immediately deciding the Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court directed Gomez to file a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating the factual basis for his ADA standing. The declaration had to address whether he intended to visit the defendant’s physical location, assuming one existed, or whether he was deterred from accessing services offered by that location, such as the sale of real estate.

The court further ordered Gomez’s counsel to file a declaration signed under penalty of perjury and consistent with Rule 11 if Gomez’s new declaration differed from representations made in three other related cases. Both declarations were due no later than May 6, 2022. The court vacated the hearing scheduled for May 6, 2022. The opinion does not state that the motion to dismiss was granted or denied.