Dominguez v. Pizza Hut of America, LLC

Background

Yovanny Dominguez, who is legally blind, brought a proposed class action against Pizza Hut of America, LLC. He alleged that Pizza Hut violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law because it did not sell gift cards containing Braille or other features accessible to blind people.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Dominguez called Pizza Hut’s customer service office on October 26, 2019, and asked whether the company sold gift cards containing Braille. An employee told him that it did not and did not offer an alternative aid or service concerning the gift cards. Dominguez alleged that he had previously been a customer at Pizza Hut stores, lived close to at least one Pizza Hut location, and intended to buy a gift card and use it at a Pizza Hut restaurant once accessible gift cards became available.

Dominguez sought an injunction requiring Pizza Hut to sell accessible gift cards, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Pizza Hut moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(1) permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, including lack of standing. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing

The court held that Dominguez had not established standing to seek the requested injunction. Standing requires a plaintiff to show, among other things, an injury that is real and sufficiently connected to the requested relief. For an injunction based on an alleged access barrier, a plaintiff cannot rely only on a past injury; he must show a real and immediate threat of future injury.

The court explained that whether a plaintiff intends to return to a business is a fact-specific question. Dominguez’s complaint stated that he had visited Pizza Hut stores before and lived near at least one location, but it did not identify the locations, state when or how often he had visited, explain what “close proximity” meant, or identify which location he intended to visit. The court found that these general statements did not plausibly show an intention to return to a particular Pizza Hut location.

The court also rejected the argument that the absence of blind-accessible gift cards itself established a sufficient barrier to returning to Pizza Hut restaurants. It noted that gift cards are generally understood as gifts for another person to use and concluded that the complaint did not allege a sufficiently particularized personal injury. The court further stated that a person may act as an accessibility “tester,” but still must satisfy the ordinary standing requirements.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Pizza Hut’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1). The court stated that Dominguez’s New York state and city claims were subject to the same standing requirements and therefore also failed at that stage. Because standing was a threshold issue, the court did not decide Pizza Hut’s alternative argument that Dominguez failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court granted Dominguez leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within fifteen days to address the deficiencies identified in the opinion. The court stated that, if he did not file an amended pleading, it would enter a final judgment of dismissal and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion.