Guglielmo v. Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc.

Background

Joseph Guglielmo sued Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleged that the company’s website denied equal access to blind and visually impaired customers, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The alleged barriers included missing alternative text for images, missing features that identified webpage purposes or required user input, repeated webpage titles, and broken links. Guglielmo alleged that he visited the website multiple times before filing the complaint and was unable to determine which products were available for purchase because of those barriers.

Nebraska Furniture Mart moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court had previously determined that the motion was not made moot by the defendant’s later answer and that the motion was unopposed because Guglielmo did not file opposition papers by the deadline.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It ruled that Guglielmo had not adequately alleged an injury in fact for standing purposes. Although he identified several types of website barriers, he did not identify where on the website he encountered them, what goods he intended to purchase, or the dates of his visits. The court also found that he had not adequately alleged an intent to return to the website. His allegation that he was deterred from using the website and might return to make a purchase if it became accessible was too vague, particularly in light of evidence that a new customer residing in New York could not place an order for delivery to New York under the company’s stated policies.

The court separately ruled that the claims would be moot even if Guglielmo had established standing. A claim is moot when there is no longer a live dispute the court can remedy. The defendant submitted a declaration stating that it had audited the website, remedied each alleged accessibility violation, and planned a redesign in which accessibility would be a central feature. The court found this evidence sufficient to meet the demanding standard for showing that the alleged violations were not reasonably expected to recur.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court also held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Nebraska Furniture Mart. The company was incorporated and headquartered in Nebraska and had no physical presence or operations in New York, so the court found no basis for general jurisdiction there. For specific jurisdiction, New York’s long-arm statute required the company to transact business in New York and the claims to arise from that business.

The court concluded that Guglielmo had not shown that the company’s website conducted commercial transactions with New York customers or targeted New York residents. The evidence showed that deliveries were limited to customers within 300 miles of a physical store or customers with a company store credit card. The nearest store to New York City was approximately 1,100 miles away, and New York residents could not obtain the store card. The court therefore found that a new New York customer could not purchase goods through the website for delivery to New York. Because New York’s long-arm statute did not authorize jurisdiction, the court did not decide whether jurisdiction would also satisfy federal due-process requirements.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. without prejudice. After dismissing the federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York City Human Rights Law claims. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, adjourn the remaining dates, and close the case.