Dominguez v. CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc.

Background

Yovanny Dominguez sued CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., which the opinion identifies as the parent company of Carl’s Jr. Dominguez alleged that CKE sold prepaid gift cards usable at its restaurants but did not offer Braille or otherwise accessible gift cards.

Dominguez alleged that he called CKE’s customer service office on October 26, 2019, asked whether CKE sold Braille gift cards, and was told that it did not. He alleged that the employee did not offer an alternative aid or service and that he later unsuccessfully tried to find accessible CKE gift cards. He alleged that the lack of an accessible gift card deterred him from fully and equally using or enjoying CKE’s restaurants, while also alleging that he intended to buy and use an accessible gift card if one became available.

He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, a permanent injunction requiring changes to CKE’s gift-card policies and practices, and attorney’s fees. CKE moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on its analysis in a prior related proceeding involving similar allegations. It held that Dominguez had not supplied sufficient evidence of his intent to return to Carl’s Jr. restaurants and therefore lacked standing to assert his Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The court explained that intent to return is a fact-specific inquiry that can include the frequency of past visits, the proximity of the defendant’s services to the plaintiff’s home, occupation, travel habits, and other relevant facts. The court found Dominguez’s allegations that CKE had restaurants near his residence, that he had previously been a customer, and that he intended to buy an accessible gift card insufficient. It also noted that he did not allege, for example, that he generally frequented local fast-food restaurants or nearby burger restaurants.

The court separately stated that Dominguez’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim would fail under Rule 12(b)(6) for the reasons discussed in the prior related proceeding. The court did not substantively analyze the New York State Human Rights Law or New York City Human Rights Law claims. Instead, because it would dismiss the federal claims, it stated that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state and city claims.

Disposition

The court granted CKE’s motion to dismiss. It allowed Dominguez 15 days to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the opinion by alleging additional facts about his interactions with CKE. The opinion states that, if no amended complaint were filed within that period, the court would enter a final judgment of dismissal and direct the clerk to close the case. The clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 22.