Gomez v. Ackerman Family Vineyards LLC

Background

Andres Gomez, who is legally blind, uses screen-reader software to navigate websites. He alleged that, in March and August 2021, he visited Ackerman Family Vineyards LLC’s website as a prospective customer seeking information about wines and wine-tasting tours. He alleged that the website had three accessibility problems: images lacked text descriptions readable by screen readers, some script elements were not readable by screen readers, and the contrast between background and foreground elements was too low.

Gomez sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that the barriers denied him full and equal access and deterred him from visiting the website again. Ackerman moved to dismiss, arguing that Gomez had not adequately alleged an injury in fact or the required likelihood that he would return.

Analysis

The court treated the motion as a challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). To establish standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient connection to the dispute—Gomez had to allege a concrete and particularized injury that was traceable to Ackerman’s conduct and could be addressed by a favorable decision.

For an Americans with Disabilities Act claim seeking an injunction, Gomez also had to show a sufficient likelihood that he would again experience similar discrimination. The court explained that this can be shown by intending to return to a noncompliant public accommodation or by being deterred from visiting it because of disability-related barriers.

Applying those standards, the court concluded that Gomez had not adequately alleged standing. The descriptions of the website’s technical barriers were too vague to show how they prevented him from enjoying the winery’s goods and services or denied him equal access. The complaint also did not allege that the website problems affected access to the winery’s physical location, which the court identified as relevant to the connection between the website and a place of public accommodation under governing appellate precedent.

The court noted that Gomez might be able to add allegations about the barriers’ effects and his intention to visit the winery’s physical location. Because amendment was allowed, the court did not decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. It also stated that Ackerman’s standing argument concerning that claim could not be resolved without an amended complaint.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court ordered that an amended complaint be filed within 20 days.