Gomez v. SF Bay Area Private RVS, Inc.

Background

Andres Gomez alleged that he is visually impaired, legally blind, and uses JAWS and other screen-reader software to access websites. He claimed that SF Bay Area Private RVS, Inc. owned or operated a car-rental facility in Fremont, California, and its website. According to the complaint, the website provided information about rental rates, vehicle availability, special offers, and promotions, and allowed customers to book vehicles.

Gomez alleged that he visited the website in March 2021 but encountered accessibility problems that prevented him from navigating it successfully with screen-reader software. He said he made multiple unsuccessful attempts to access the website, was deterred from trying again because of the barriers, and would return once the facility and website were represented to be accessible. He sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking declaratory relief, an injunction, damages, and attorney’s fees.

The defendant did not appear. At Gomez’s request, the clerk entered default, and Gomez moved for default judgment.

Standing and jurisdiction

Before granting default judgment, the court said it had an affirmative duty to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. The court focused on whether Gomez had standing—a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury to invoke the federal court’s authority.

The court explained that a private plaintiff seeking an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act must show a real and immediate threat of being injured again. A plaintiff may do this by showing an intent to return to a noncompliant facility or that the barriers deter him from returning to a facility he would otherwise visit as part of his regular activities. Past exposure to unlawful conduct alone is not enough; the plaintiff must show continuing effects and a genuine desire to return.

The court found that Gomez alleged a sufficient connection between the website and the physical car-rental facility because the website described the facility’s services, rates, and vehicle availability and allowed customers to book vehicles. But the court found that he had not shown a genuine desire to patronize the facility despite the website barriers. He did not allege or provide evidence that he lived near the facility or planned to travel near it, and he provided no factual allegations or evidence establishing where he lived. The court concluded that his assertion that he was deterred from browsing the website, without a demonstrated connection to the physical facility, was insufficient.

The court also discussed decisions in other lawsuits involving Gomez that stated he lived in Florida. The court said it could not take judicial notice of those decisions for the truth of the residence statements, although it could recognize that other courts had determined his residence to be in Florida. The court reviewed Gomez’s materials but found no factual basis showing that he intended to patronize the facility in the future or was deterred from doing so by the website barriers.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman concluded that Gomez had not established standing to seek injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Without subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal claim, the court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

The court denied Gomez’s motion for default judgment without prejudice and terminated the motion listed as ECF 29. The opinion did not enter default judgment or decide the underlying accessibility claims on their merits.