Quezada v. U.S. Wings, Inc.

Background

Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, sued U.S. Wings, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He alleged that U.S. Wings’ website, www.uswings.com, was not accessible to blind and visually impaired users who rely on screen-reading software. Quezada alleged that he visited the website on December 10, 2020, to review and purchase jackets and leather vests, but could not make a purchase because of accessibility barriers.

For the ADA claim, Quezada sought to represent legally blind individuals in the United States who had attempted to use U.S. Wings’ website and were denied equal access to its goods and services. For the NYCHRL claim, he sought to represent a New York City subclass. The amended complaint listed thirteen website issues and barriers that Quezada experienced or alleged the website contained.

U.S. Wings moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claims, and under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Standing

U.S. Wings argued that Quezada lacked standing because U.S. Wings had remediated the website’s accessibility problems, Quezada had not shown that he intended to return to the website when he filed the original complaint, and he had not alleged an injury in fact.

The court rejected the mootness argument. To show that an ADA accessibility claim is moot because a website has been fixed, the defendant must establish that the violation is not reasonably expected to recur and that its effects have been completely and permanently eliminated. U.S. Wings submitted information about a one-year partnership with accessiBe and three audit reports stating that the website complied with the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1. Quezada submitted a declaration from Robert D. Moody, who evaluated the website on April 29, 2021, and found that accessibility problems remained. The court concluded that U.S. Wings had not shown that the problems had been undoubtedly fixed.

The court also found that Quezada had sufficiently alleged an intent to return. He stated that he intended to return to the website to purchase leather jackets and military-branded apparel if the accessibility problems were remedied. The court noted that the products were alleged to be available for nationwide purchase and delivery, and that websites could be accessed again easily. It therefore found his allegations sufficient for this stage of the case.

Finally, the court found that Quezada had adequately alleged an injury in fact. He alleged that he could not obtain information about the products, could not purchase items, and was deterred from visiting the website. The court concluded that his inability to use the website properly and his resulting deterrence constituted an injury directly resulting from U.S. Wings’ alleged conduct. The court therefore concluded that Quezada had standing under the ADA and that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are part of the same constitutional case or controversy as claims within federal jurisdiction. Because the court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claims, it also concluded that it had supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claims.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court distinguished between general and specific personal jurisdiction. It concluded that it did not have general jurisdiction over U.S. Wings because the company was incorporated and headquartered in Ohio, had no physical presence or operations in New York, did not advertise in New York, and did not solicit customers in New York. Quezada’s ability to access the website in New York, standing alone, was not enough to establish general jurisdiction.

The court nevertheless found a basis for specific personal jurisdiction. New York’s long-arm statute permits jurisdiction over a nonresident that transacts business in New York when the claim arises from that business. The court found that U.S. Wings’ website was interactive because it allowed customers to purchase and exchange goods, including goods available for purchase and delivery in New York. Quezada alleged that he attempted to access the website to make a purchase, and U.S. Wings had not denied that the website offered goods for sale to New York consumers. The court concluded that the claim arose from U.S. Wings’ New York-related business activity.

The court further concluded that exercising jurisdiction complied with constitutional due-process requirements. It found that U.S. Wings had sufficient purposeful contacts with New York and that exercising jurisdiction was not unreasonable, despite the burden of litigating in New York.

Disposition

The court denied U.S. Wings’ motion to dismiss. It directed the parties to attend a telephonic initial pretrial conference on January 13, 2022, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.