Monegro v. Street Insider Dot Com Inc.

Background

Frankie Monegro sued Street Insider Dot Com Inc. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. Monegro alleged that he is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reading software to access the internet. He said that he intended to make a purchase on Street Insider’s website on several occasions, most recently in March 2021, but could not do so because the website was not compatible with his software.

Monegro identified alleged accessibility barriers including missing alternative text, missing labels or title attributes for fields, repeated page titles, and broken links. He alleged that these barriers denied him the ability to use and enjoy the website in the same way as sighted individuals. He asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought a permanent injunction requiring Street Insider to retain a qualified consultant and adopt accessibility and training measures, as well as compensatory damages, costs, and expenses.

Motion and legal standard

Street Insider moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) permits dismissal when the court lacks authority to decide the case. Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a claim for relief. The court first addressed subject-matter jurisdiction because jurisdiction must be resolved before the court reaches the merits.

To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must show an injury that is concrete and particularized, that the defendant caused it, and that a favorable court decision would likely remedy it. For an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Second Circuit requires a plaintiff to allege past injury, a reasonable basis to infer that the discrimination will continue, and a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff intends to return to the location or website.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Monegro did not allege that he intended to return to Street Insider’s website. The court described intent to return as a fact-specific inquiry. In a website case, relevant facts may include the plaintiff’s internet-use habits and interest in the website’s subject matter. The court found that Monegro did not allege that he intended to return for any purpose, including consuming financial news or testing accessibility.

The court rejected Monegro’s reliance on a decision involving an Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” because Monegro did not identify himself as a tester in his complaint. The court also found that Monegro could not rely on deterrence as an injury because he did not express an interest in the subject matter of Street Insider’s website or an intention to return if the website became accessible.

Because Monegro failed to establish standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that the New York City Human Rights Law claims were governed by the same standing requirements and therefore were dismissed for the same reason. The court added that, even if the New York City claims were not subject to the same standing result, it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them after dismissing the federal claims at this early stage.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Street Insider’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) without prejudice. Monegro may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order; otherwise, the case will be closed. The opinion did not reach Street Insider’s other arguments concerning whether the website was covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act or whether Monegro stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).