Langer v. Oval Motor Sports, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-06401
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Langer v. Oval Motor Sports, Inc., Judge Chesney dismissed the complaint for lack of standing but allowed Langer to amend it.
Chris Langer’s ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but he was allowed to file an amended complaint. Oval Motor Sports, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
Chris Langer alleged that videos on the Antioch Speedway website lacked closed captioning, making them difficult for him to understand because he is hard of hearing. He sued Oval Motor Sports, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Oval Motor Sports asked the court to dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claim for lack of constitutional standing and because it was moot. The court found that Langer had not alleged a sufficient connection between the website and the speedway’s physical location because he did not say he intended to use, or was prevented from accessing, the speedway’s goods or services.
Judge Chesney granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, including the related state-law claim, but allowed Langer to file an amended complaint by June 30, 2022. The court did not decide the mootness argument.
The detailed version
- Langer v. Oval Motor Sports, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-06401
- Maxine Chesney
- June 3, 2022
Background
Chris Langer alleged that he is hard of hearing and visited the Antioch Speedway website in July 2021 to look for information about car racing. He alleged that videos on the website lacked closed captioning, which prevented him from fully understanding and consuming their contents. He brought a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion states that the Unruh Act claim was entirely based on the ADA claim.
Motion and analysis
Oval Motor Sports, Inc. moved to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of Article III standing and because the claim was moot. The court addressed standing first. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege specific facts supporting standing. In an ADA case involving an alleged website barrier, the plaintiff must show a connection, or “nexus,” between the website and a physical place of public accommodation. The plaintiff may establish standing by showing deterrence or by showing an actual injury together with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.
The court found that Langer had not alleged the required connection between the Antioch Speedway website and a physical location. Although he alleged that he visited the website for information about car racing, was deterred from returning to the website, and would return once it became accessible, he did not allege that he intended or desired to access the speedway’s goods or services, or that the missing captions impeded his access to those goods or services. The court therefore concluded that the ADA claim was subject to dismissal for lack of standing.
Disposition
The court granted Oval Motor Sports, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Langer’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the ADA claim was the only claim supporting federal jurisdiction, the court also dismissed the Unruh Act claim. The court granted Langer leave to amend and set June 30, 2022, as the deadline for an amended complaint. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and did not address Oval Motor Sports, Inc.’s additional mootness argument. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.