Yovanny Dominguez v. Gran Lux Cafe LLC

Background

Yovanny Dominguez brought a proposed class action against Grand Lux Cafe LLC. He alleged that Grand Lux Cafe violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to sell braille or otherwise blind-accessible gift cards. Dominguez alleged that he is legally blind, called Grand Lux Cafe’s customer service line on October 26, 2019, asked whether the company sold gift cards containing braille, and was told that it did not. He also alleged that the employee did not offer him other assistance concerning the gift cards and that he could not find accessible gift cards to purchase.

Dominguez alleged that he had previously been a customer at Grand Lux Cafe’s stores and intended to purchase a gift card and use it at a restaurant once accessible gift cards became available. He sought an injunction, meaning a court order requiring Grand Lux Cafe to sell accessible gift cards, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

Grand Lux Cafe moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, including whether the plaintiff has standing. Rule 12(b)(6) addresses whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court had previously allowed Dominguez to amend his complaint in response to arguments that it was deficient but had stated that he would not receive another opportunity to amend to address those issues.

Standing analysis

The court explained that standing is a constitutional requirement for bringing a case in federal court. A plaintiff must show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. Because Dominguez sought an injunction, he could not rely only on past harm; he also had to show a real and immediate threat of future injury.

For disability-access claims, the court said that future injury may be shown when the plaintiff alleges past discrimination, facts supporting an inference that the discrimination will continue, and facts supporting a plausible intention to return to the relevant place. The court emphasized that the intention-to-return inquiry is fact-sensitive and requires specific, non-conclusory facts.

The court found Dominguez’s allegations insufficient. His statements that he had visited Grand Lux Cafe stores before, lived near at least one location, and intended to buy an accessible gift card were not supported by details about when he visited, how often he visited, which location he visited, which location was near him, what “close proximity” meant, or which location he intended to visit. The court concluded that these allegations did not provide a plausible basis to infer that Dominguez intended to return to a particular Grand Lux Cafe location.

The court also found that Dominguez had not explained how the absence of braille or otherwise accessible gift cards created a barrier to returning to Grand Lux Cafe’s physical restaurants. Although the court recognized that being deterred from visiting a business can constitute an injury under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it stated that a plaintiff must personally encounter or be deterred by a barrier. The court further noted that gift cards are commonly understood as gifts for another person to use, while a plaintiff who tests accessibility is still required to establish a personal injury.

Ruling

The court held that Dominguez failed to establish standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It stated that the New York State and New York City claims were governed by the same standing requirements and therefore also failed. Because standing was lacking, the court did not reach Grand Lux Cafe’s argument that Dominguez also failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice. It declined to allow another amendment because Dominguez had already amended once after receiving notice of the standing deficiency and had not identified proposed amendments that would cure it.