Gomez v. Lesti Real Estate, Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-09554
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gomez v. Lesti Real Estate, Judge Illston dismissed Gomez’s ADA claim without leave to amend and his Unruh Act claim without prejudice.
Andres Gomez’s ADA and Unruh Act claims against Lesti Real Estate, Inc.
What happened
In Gomez v. Lesti Real Estate, Inc., Andres Gomez claimed that Lesti Real Estate’s website was inaccessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court had required Gomez to explain why he had the legal right to bring the claim, including whether he planned to visit Lesti’s physical location or was deterred from using its services.
Gomez’s sworn declaration said that the real-estate listing information on the website was itself the service. He disclaimed any intention to visit Lesti’s physical office and did not say he wanted to use the website to reach another Lesti service or good. The court found this declaration insufficient to establish standing and concluded that Gomez had not stated an ADA claim.
Judge Illston dismissed the ADA claim without leave to amend and declined to hear the related Unruh Act claim, dismissing that claim without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Lesti Real Estate, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-09554
- Susan Illston
- May 16, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez brought an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim based on the accessibility of Lesti Real Estate, Inc.’s website and a related claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On April 26, 2022, the court directed Gomez to file a sworn declaration explaining the factual basis for his standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient connection to the alleged violation to invoke the court’s authority. The court identified two possible grounds: whether Gomez intended to visit Lesti’s physical location, assuming one existed, or whether the website deterred him from accessing services offered at that location, such as real-estate sales.
Gomez’s Declaration and the ADA Claim
Gomez filed his declaration on May 6, 2022. The declaration was identical to one he had filed in a prior related proceeding in which the court found the declaration insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
In this case, Gomez asserted that the real-estate listing information on Lesti’s website was itself the service. He disclaimed any intention to visit Lesti’s physical office and stated that he did not wish to use the website to facilitate access to a Lesti service or good beyond the website. The court distinguished examples in which an inaccessible website blocked access to another service, including custom-order pizza delivery or an event-registration form. The court stated that Gomez cited no Ninth Circuit authority allowing a Title III ADA claim when inaccessible website information was the sole basis of the claim and the website did not separately impede access to the goods or services of a public accommodation.
The court concluded that Gomez had not stated an ADA claim and dismissed that cause of action without leave to amend.
Unruh Act Claim and Disposition
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gomez’s Unruh Act claim. The order dismissed that claim without prejudice.
Result
The ADA claim was dismissed without leave to amend. The Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice. The order was signed by United States District Judge Susan Illston and dated May 16, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.