Gomez v. Muscardini Cellars LLC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-00788
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gomez v. Muscardini Cellars LLC, Judge Chhabria lifted the show-cause order, kept the Unruh Act claim, and questioned but did not dismiss the ADA claim.
Andres Gomez’s ADA and California Unruh Act claims against Muscardini Cellars LLC, and the defendant’s ability to seek jurisdictional discovery.
What happened
In Gomez v. Muscardini Cellars LLC, Andres Gomez alleged that the defendant’s website was inaccessible and brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court said the Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed because the website claim was not a construction-related accessibility claim. It also found no current basis to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of jurisdiction, although it questioned whether the complaint adequately explained how the website affected access to the defendant’s physical location, goods, or services. The court lifted the order to show cause and required a status report by October 3, 2022.
Judge Vince Chhabria issued the order on July 6, 2022.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Muscardini Cellars LLC · No. 3:22-cv-00788
- Vince Chhabria
- July 6, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act based on alleged inaccessibility of Muscardini Cellars LLC’s website.
Unruh Act claim
The court explained that when a “high-frequency” litigant brings an Unruh Act claim together with an ADA claim, the combination will typically be an exceptional circumstance supporting dismissal of the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). But the court said that rule applies only to a construction-related accessibility claim. Because Gomez’s claim concerned an allegedly inaccessible website rather than a construction-related accessibility issue, the court found no exceptional circumstance justifying dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.
Jurisdiction and ADA claim
The court held that there was no current basis to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. It also said jurisdictional discovery—fact gathering directed at whether that authority exists—would not be fruitful, although the defendant could request it if it could identify a basis for doing so.
The court expressed skepticism that the complaint adequately stated an ADA claim. Specifically, it said the complaint did not explain how the website’s alleged shortcomings prevented Gomez from visiting the defendant’s physical location or accessing its goods or services. The opinion did not dismiss the ADA claim on that ground.
Disposition
The court lifted the order to show cause. It ordered that a status report be filed by October 3, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.