Sanchez v. Germack Pistachio Company

Background

Christian Sanchez, whom the opinion describes as visually impaired and legally blind, alleged that NutCo’s website, www.germack.com, was not fully accessible to people with visual impairments. Sanchez said he needed screen-reading software and encountered barriers when he visited the website in 2020 and 2021 to buy pistachios and other snack foods, use discounts and promotions, and understand product information. The alleged barriers included product descriptions and prices that did not work with his software, a product catalog in an incompatible PDF format, and no indication that an item had been added to the online cart. Sanchez also alleged that the website did not comply with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Sanchez alleged that the barriers deterred him from returning but that he intended to visit the website again and make a purchase once the barriers were fixed. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. NutCo moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), arguing respectively that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction over NutCo, and that Sanchez had not stated a claim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Standing

NutCo argued that Sanchez lacked Article III standing because he had not adequately alleged a past injury connected to an Americans with Disabilities Act violation or a real and immediate threat of future injury. NutCo also argued that the case was moot because the website had been updated to comply with accessibility guidelines.

The court concluded that Sanchez adequately alleged standing. It found that his allegations that he could not determine product prices and details or confirm that products had been added to his cart because of accessibility barriers sufficiently pleaded a past injury traceable to NutCo’s conduct. The court also found that Sanchez’s allegations that he had tried unsuccessfully to use the website, was deterred from returning, and intended to return when the barriers were fixed supported a reasonable inference that he intended to visit again.

The court also rejected NutCo’s mootness argument. NutCo submitted an affidavit stating that the website was accessible and would remain accessible. Sanchez submitted a declaration identifying continuing accessibility problems. Because the evidence about the website’s accessibility conflicted, the court found that NutCo had not met its substantial burden to show that the alleged problem could not reasonably happen again.

Personal Jurisdiction

NutCo argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, meaning authority over NutCo as a defendant. The court applied New York’s long-arm statute and considered whether NutCo transacted business in New York and whether Sanchez’s claims arose from that business.

The court found that the website was interactive and allowed customers in New York to purchase and exchange goods. NutCo’s affidavit stated that the website sold products originating from NutCo and its corporate affiliate and offered an online retail shop. The website also advertised shipping throughout the United States. Because Sanchez alleged that he tried to use the website to make a purchase, the court found a sufficient connection between the alleged injury and business in New York.

The court rejected NutCo’s argument that only its corporate affiliate owned and operated the website. The court noted that NutCo had owned the domain registration when the complaint was filed, had operated the website before creating the affiliate, shared corporate executives with the affiliate, and supplied products sold on the website. The court concluded that the affiliate acted for NutCo’s benefit and with its knowledge and consent, and that NutCo exercised meaningful control over the affiliate. The court also found sufficient minimum contacts with New York and concluded that exercising jurisdiction was reasonable. It therefore denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Failure to State a Claim

NutCo separately argued under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts for a legally plausible claim, that it did not own, operate, or control the website. NutCo relied on an affidavit stating that its corporate affiliate owned and operated the website.

The court declined to consider that affidavit for this part of the motion because review was generally limited to the complaint, documents attached to it, and documents incorporated into it. The complaint alleged that NutCo owned and operated the website, and the court was required to treat that allegation as true at this stage. The court therefore denied NutCo’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Disposition

The court denied NutCo’s motion to dismiss. It ordered NutCo to file an answer within 21 days after the opinion and order and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 27.