Guglielmo v. Jeg's Automotive, Inc.

Background

Joseph Guglielmo alleged that he is visually impaired and legally blind and needs screen-reading software to read website content. He claimed that JEGS Automotive, Inc., an Ohio corporation that owns and operates www.jegs.com, maintained a website that lacked accessibility features, including alternative text for images, labels or title attributes for fields, and functioning links. According to the complaint, these barriers prevented him from identifying products and having an online shopping experience similar to that of a sighted customer.

Guglielmo asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law for himself, a proposed nationwide class of legally blind individuals, and a proposed New York City subclass. He also sought a declaration that JEGS's website violated applicable laws protecting blind people from discrimination.

JEGS's Motion

JEGS moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. JEGS argued that the court could not exercise authority over the company in New York. It also argued that the declaratory judgment claim duplicated the substantive claims.

Guglielmo relied on two website pages concerning New York sales tax and on JEGS's statements about its overall sales and business operations. JEGS responded that the website's accessibility from New York, without evidence of an actual New York purchase or delivery, did not establish that it had purposefully conducted business in New York. JEGS also argued that the complaint's allegations about doing business in New York were conclusory.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court focused on New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1), which permits jurisdiction when a defendant transacts business in New York and the claim arises from that business. The court explained that a commercial website does not by itself establish jurisdiction. The relevant question was whether JEGS used the website to reach New York in a meaningful way, such as through actual sales or active solicitation, and whether Guglielmo's claim was substantially related to that business.

The court held that Guglielmo had made less than a preliminary showing of personal jurisdiction. The website's New York sales-tax information and JEGS's general statements about the size of its business did not establish that JEGS actually made website sales to New York customers. The court also concluded that merely allowing New York residents to access the website was insufficient.

The court nevertheless found that Guglielmo had made a sufficient start toward establishing jurisdiction to justify limited jurisdictional discovery. The court reasoned that, accepting the complaint's allegations as true for this purpose, the alleged website barriers may have prevented Guglielmo from making the purchase that could have established jurisdiction. Evidence that JEGS made substantial sales and provided New York tax forms made it plausible that some website sales occurred in New York. Information about the proportion of JEGS's website sales to New York customers was not publicly available and was particularly within JEGS's knowledge.

The court therefore authorized limited discovery concerning whether JEGS sold products through its website to New York customers at the time the lawsuit was filed. JEGS had not submitted an affidavit establishing that it could not sell or deliver products to New York. After discovery, JEGS could renew its motion to dismiss if it had a good-faith basis to contend that personal jurisdiction was still lacking.

Declaratory Judgment Claim

The court stated that Guglielmo did not respond to JEGS's argument concerning the declaratory judgment claim and therefore deemed that claim abandoned. The court also ruled that, even if it had not been abandoned, the claim was duplicative because it sought a declaration about the same alleged violations addressed by the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law claims.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman concluded that the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Limited jurisdictional discovery was authorized for the personal-jurisdiction issue under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1), with 90 days for the parties to conduct discovery. The court directed that JEGS's motion docket entry be closed and allowed JEGS to renew its jurisdictional motion within 30 days after discovery ended if appropriate.