Jaquez v. Aqua Carpatica USA, Inc.

Background

Ramon Jaquez brought a proposed class action against Aqua Carpatica USA, Inc. He alleged that Aqua Carpatica’s website, shopaquacarpatica.com, denied visually impaired people full and equal access to its goods and services. The alleged barriers included images and product information that did not work with screen-reading software, an inaccessible one-time-purchase option, and inaccessible nutritional information. Jaquez alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He requested declarations and injunctions requiring Aqua Carpatica to make the website accessible.

Jaquez alleged that he visited the website on September 20, 2020, intending to browse and potentially make a purchase, and encountered access barriers while using NonVisual Desktop Access, a screen-reading program. He also alleged that the barriers remained when he visited the website on December 23, 2020, and that he wanted to return to the website to potentially purchase products once it became accessible.

Motion and Arguments

Aqua Carpatica moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It argued that Jaquez lacked Article III standing, that the ADA claim was moot because the company had remedied the alleged website problems, and that Jaquez failed to state a claim for certain NYCHRL relief.

Standing

The court held that Jaquez lacked standing to bring the ADA claim. Standing requires a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be remedied by a favorable ruling. Because Jaquez sought injunctive relief, he also had to show a likelihood of future harm.

The court found that Jaquez had not adequately alleged an injury in fact. In particular, he did not identify the product he intended to purchase during either website visit, and he did not identify a product he wanted to purchase in the future. The court concluded that merely visiting the website with an intent to browse and potentially buy something, without identifying the product he was prevented from purchasing, was insufficient to establish standing. The court therefore granted dismissal of the ADA claim on that jurisdictional ground.

Mootness Discussion

Although the court found that Jaquez lacked standing, it also addressed Aqua Carpatica’s argument that later website changes made the ADA claim moot. Aqua Carpatica submitted evidence that it had reviewed the websites, installed AudioEye software, and addressed alleged access barriers. Jaquez responded that he continued to encounter barriers, and he submitted an expert audit reporting accessibility issues in February 2021.

The court concluded that, if Jaquez had standing, the ADA claim would not necessarily be moot. The court noted evidence that some alleged barriers remained in early January 2021 and that Jaquez’s expert reported remaining accessibility problems in February 2021. The court stated that Aqua Carpatica had not proven that all barriers had been remedied or that the alleged violation could not recur.

NYCHRL Claim and Disposition

After dismissing the federal ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claim. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state or city-law claims, but the court may decline that jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original federal jurisdiction. The court found this was the usual situation in which the remaining local-law claim should not remain in federal court, and it found no judicial-economy, convenience, fairness, or comity considerations requiring otherwise.

The court’s conclusion states: “Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.” It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.