Lopez v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-09913
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Lopez v. Stop & Shop, Judge Furman granted Stop & Shop’s motion to dismiss Lopez’s ADA claim and dismissed state and local claims without prejudice.
Victor Lopez’s ADA claim was dismissed, and his state- and local-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. Stop & Shop obtained dismissal of the case, and the court did not grant Lopez leave to amend.
What happened
In Victor Lopez v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, Lopez claimed that Stop & Shop violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by not selling gift cards accessible to blind people. Stop & Shop asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing both that Lopez lacked the required constitutional standing and that his ADA claim failed on the merits.
Judge Furman agreed that Lopez had standing, but held that the ADA did not require Stop & Shop to sell accessible gift cards. The court reasoned that gift cards are goods rather than currency services, and that Lopez had not adequately alleged that Stop & Shop failed to provide other helpful aids for visually impaired customers.
In Lopez v. Stop & Shop, Judge Furman dismissed the ADA claim, declined to hear the state and local claims, dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court, denied leave to amend, granted Stop & Shop’s motion to dismiss, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC · No. 1:19-cv-09913
- Jesse Furman
- July 21, 2020
Background
Victor Lopez brought a putative class action against The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, alleging that the company violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to sell gift cards accessible to blind people. Stop & Shop moved to dismiss under two theories: that Lopez lacked Article III standing, meaning a sufficient personal stake to invoke federal jurisdiction, and that the ADA claim failed on the merits.
Standing
The court held that Lopez had Article III standing. Although the issue was close, Judge Furman found Lopez’s allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss when taken as true. The court followed the reasoning of a prior related proceeding involving similar allegations and noted that the complaints were nearly identical apart from the parties’ names and relevant dates.
ADA Claim
The court held that selling non-accessible gift cards did not violate the ADA. It reasoned that gift cards are not themselves public accommodations, distinguishing the case from website-accessibility cases. It also concluded that a gift card is a good rather than a currency service, and that the ADA and its implementing regulations do not require goods to be sold in an accessible form or in the particular form requested by Lopez. In addition, the court found that Lopez had not adequately alleged that Stop & Shop failed to offer appropriate auxiliary aids or services for visually impaired people using its gift cards.
The court therefore dismissed Lopez’s ADA claim. The opinion does not state whether that dismissal was with or without prejudice.
State and Local Claims
After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lopez’s state- and local-law claims. The court cited the early stage of the case, the usual preference for dismissing related state claims after federal claims are dismissed, and the fact that the claims raised novel state and local issues. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court declined to grant Lopez leave to amend. It found that the problems with the ADA claim were substantive, that Lopez had not identified additional facts that could cure them, and that he had already amended his complaint after being notified of Stop & Shop’s arguments. The court also noted that Lopez was represented by counsel and had filed nearly identical papers in related cases in which plaintiffs did not file second amended complaints.
Judge Furman granted Stop & Shop’s motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.