Tucker v. Puma North America, Inc.

Background

Henry Tucker, who is visually impaired, alleged that Puma North America, Inc. did not offer gift cards incorporating Braille. He claimed that this prevented him and similarly situated people from independently using or accessing information on the gift cards in the same way as sighted customers. The first amended complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as New York City and New York State law.

Puma moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns whether the court has jurisdiction, including whether the plaintiff has standing. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Puma argued that Tucker had not plausibly alleged a legally recognized injury and that the ADA did not require Puma to offer Braille gift cards.

Court’s Analysis

The court followed its reasoning in a prior related proceeding involving similar allegations. It concluded that Tucker had standing, rejecting Puma’s argument that he had not alleged a legally recognized injury.

The court nevertheless concluded that Tucker had not stated a cognizable ADA claim. First, it held that gift cards are a “good” that Puma had no duty to modify under the ADA. Second, it held that Tucker had not alleged facts showing that Puma refused him all means of receiving effective communication about its gift cards. Therefore, the allegation that Puma violated the ADA merely by failing to offer Braille gift cards as an auxiliary aid was insufficient.

Because the federal ADA claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to decide related state-law claims—involving Tucker’s New York City and New York State claims.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It denied as moot Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint. The court invited Tucker to explain how a second amended complaint could state a sufficient claim, specifically by identifying additional facts showing that Puma failed to provide auxiliary aids or services that would ensure effective communication of gift-card information to blind people. Tucker had to file a letter motion requesting leave to amend or stating that he would not do so by November 9, 2020. The opinion states that, if Tucker chose not to amend, the court would enter final judgment and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case.