Paguada v. Washington Music Sales Center, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-03014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Paguada v. Washington Music, Judge Carter denied Washington Music’s motion to transfer the accessibility lawsuit from New York to Maryland.
Dilenia Paguada and Washington Music Sales Center, Inc.; the case remained in the Southern District of New York for further proceedings.
What happened
In Paguada v. Washington Music Sales Center, Inc., Dilenia Paguada alleged that the company’s website was not accessible to blind and visually impaired people, violating federal and New York City disability-rights laws.
Washington Music asked to move the case to the District of Maryland, where its operations, employees, website operators, documents, and proposed witnesses were located. Paguada opposed the transfer, and the court found that Maryland would have been a proper venue but that the reasons for transfer did not outweigh her choice to litigate in New York.
Judge Andrew L. Carter denied the motion to transfer. The case remained in the Southern District of New York, and the court referred it to a designated magistrate judge for general pretrial supervision.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. Washington Music Sales Center, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-03014
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
Dilenia Paguada sued Washington Music Sales Center, Inc., alleging that its website was inaccessible and could not be used independently by blind and visually impaired people. She asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Paguada is legally blind and visited the company’s website in March 2021 to browse and potentially make a purchase, but could not do so because of missing features and accommodations.
Motion to Transfer
Washington Music moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the District of Maryland. That statute permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice when the case could have been brought in the proposed district.
The court agreed with the parties that venue would have been proper in Maryland. Washington Music argued that transfer was appropriate because its physical operations, employees, website operators, documents, and proposed witnesses were in or around Maryland. It also argued that keeping the case in New York would require nonparty witnesses to travel there.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a plaintiff’s choice of forum receives significant consideration and generally will not be disturbed unless other factors strongly favor transfer. It found that Washington Music’s arguments did not overcome that presumption. The court also relied on decisions from other district courts finding venue proper where the plaintiff tried to access the defendant’s website. In the court’s view, transferring the case would merely shift the inconvenience and would require Paguada to litigate far from her chosen forum.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter denied Washington Music’s motion to transfer venue. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and the court referred the action to the designated magistrate judge for general pretrial supervision. The opinion did not decide whether Washington Music violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or the New York City Human Rights Law.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.