Lopez v. Peapod, LLC.

Background

Victor Lopez, described as visually impaired and legally blind, brought a proposed class action against Peapod, LLC. He alleged that Peapod violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to sell gift cards containing Braille or otherwise accessible features.

Lopez alleged that he called Peapod’s customer service office on October 22, 2019, asked whether Peapod sold gift cards containing Braille, and was told that it did not. He also alleged that Peapod’s employee did not offer alternative assistance concerning the gift cards. Lopez claimed that without accessible gift cards he could not independently determine information such as the balance or terms of use, distinguish Peapod’s gift cards from others, or use the cards in the same manner as sighted people.

Peapod moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court noted that Peapod operated an online grocery store and found that Lopez had not adequately alleged that Peapod owned, operated, or controlled the physical Stop & Shop stores where customers could pick up online orders.

Standing

The court first considered standing, which is the requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal injury and connection to the dispute for a federal court to hear the case. The court found that Lopez plausibly alleged an injury and that the alleged lack of accessible gift cards would continue. But the court held that he did not plead sufficiently specific facts showing an intent to return to Peapod.

Lopez did not allege that he had previously used Peapod to purchase groceries, visited its website, or otherwise been a Peapod customer. His allegation that he had been a customer at the defendant’s stores appeared to refer to Stop & Shop supermarkets, while Peapod itself had no physical stores. Lopez also alleged that he planned to buy an accessible gift card and use it at the defendant’s grocery stores, but he did not allege that he intended to use the gift card to order groceries through Peapod’s online service. The court therefore found his allegations too general to establish the required intent to return.

ADA Claim

The court further held that dismissal was warranted even if Lopez had standing. To state a Title III ADA claim, a plaintiff must allege that he has a disability, that the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation, and that the defendant denied him a full and equal opportunity to enjoy its services.

The court rejected Lopez’s argument that gift cards themselves were places of public accommodation. It reasoned that the ADA lists categories of private entities considered public accommodations, and gift cards do not fit within those categories. The court also determined that gift cards are goods, not cash-like financial services, and held that the ADA does not require businesses to sell goods in an accessible form or in the particular form requested by a customer. Accordingly, the court ruled that Peapod was not required to provide Braille or otherwise accessible gift cards, even assuming it was covered as a place of public accommodation.

The court also found that Lopez had not plausibly alleged that Peapod failed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids or services. His allegations showed only that he asked about Braille gift cards and was told that Peapod did not sell them. The court concluded that he had not made a sufficient inquiry into whether Peapod offered other assistance for using its gift cards.

State and City Claims; Leave to Amend

After dismissing the federal ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction based on the presence of related federal claims, over Lopez’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

The court denied leave to amend. It found that the problems with the ADA claim were substantive and that Lopez had not identified additional facts that could cure them. The court also noted that Lopez had already amended his complaint after receiving notice of Peapod’s anticipated arguments.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Peapod’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Lopez’s ADA claim with prejudice, dismissed his New York State and New York City claims without prejudice, denied leave to amend, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case, and adjourned the remaining dates.