Calcano v. Swarovski North America Limited

Background

Swarovski offers prepaid store gift cards that can be used at its stores. Marcos Calcano alleged that he is visually impaired and that, on November 9, 2019, he called Swarovski’s customer service office to ask whether it sold Braille gift cards. An employee allegedly told him that Swarovski did not. Calcano also alleged that the employee did not offer an alternative aid or service, and that he later unsuccessfully searched for accessible Swarovski gift cards.

Calcano alleged that the lack of an accessible gift card deterred him from fully and equally using or enjoying Swarovski’s retail goods and services. He stated that he intended to buy an accessible gift card and use it at a Swarovski store if such cards 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, seeking damages, an injunction requiring changes to Swarovski’s policies, and attorney’s fees.

Motion and Analysis

Swarovski moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The court found that Calcano had not provided sufficient evidence of an intent to return to Swarovski and therefore lacked standing to assert his Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury and the requested relief.

The court also stated that Calcano’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim would fail under Rule 12(b)(6) for the reasons identified in the court’s related decision involving a different retailer. The court found no substantive differences between the complaints or briefing that would require a different result. Because it would dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claims, the court said it did not need to conduct a substantive analysis of the New York State or New York City claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Swarovski’s motion to dismiss. The court allowed Calcano fifteen days to file a second amended complaint alleging additional facts about his interactions with Swarovski. The court stated that, if no amended complaint was filed within that period, it would enter a final judgment of dismissal and direct the clerk to close the case. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.