Gomez v. Miersch

Background

Andres Gomez alleged that he is legally blind and uses screen-reader software to read internet content. He described himself as a “tester in this litigation” and stated that he resides in Florida. Gomez alleged that Matthew Paul Miersch owns or operates Napahomes.Com, a website that provides information connected to goods or services offered from a physical location in California. Gomez said he visited the website in March and July 2021 while considering purchasing a home in the Northern California area.

Gomez alleged that the website contained accessibility barriers that prevented his screen-reader software from reading the site. He claimed that, if the website had been equally accessible, he could have navigated it and purchased or rented a house. He brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act. Miersch moved to dismiss for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Gomez had not suffered a legally recognizable injury.

Standing and the ADA claim

The court explained that Article III standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. For an ADA website claim, the court applied the Ninth Circuit’s requirement of a “nexus,” meaning a connection between the website and a physical place of public accommodation.

The court stated that this connection generally requires allegations that the website’s inaccessibility deterred the plaintiff from using services at the related physical location. The court contrasted cases in which websites helped customers locate restaurants or obtain services from physical businesses with cases in which plaintiffs alleged only general curiosity about a business or did not allege an intent to visit a physical location.

The court held that Gomez had not pleaded specific facts showing a nexus between the alleged website barriers and a physical place of accommodation. In particular, he had not specifically alleged that a physical place associated with Napahomes.Com was one he intended to visit or that the website prevented him from visiting it. The court therefore concluded that he lacked standing for his ADA claim and dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Unruh Act claim

The court stated that its only basis for hearing the Unruh Act claim was supplemental jurisdiction, which is discretionary. Because it dismissed the parallel ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, concluding that doing so would not further judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity. The court also dismissed that claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

Although the court expressed concern that amendment might be futile, it permitted Gomez to file one amended complaint. Because it raised serious questions about the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations, the court ordered Gomez and his counsel to submit separate declarations, sworn under penalty of perjury, substantiating those allegations.

The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. It required the amended complaint and the attached declarations to be filed within 21 days of the order.