Gonzalez v. Inn on the Hudson LLC

Background

Jesus Gonzalez alleged that he has paraplegia and uses a wheelchair. Inn on the Hudson LLC owns and operates a hotel in Peekskill, New York, and maintains a website that provides information about rooms and amenities and allows prospective guests to make reservations. Gonzalez alleged that he visited the website to learn about the hotel’s accessibility features and determine whether he could reserve an accessible room.

Gonzalez alleged that the website did not provide enough information about the hotel’s accessibility features and did not offer a way to reserve an accessible room. He claimed that these barriers denied him and other people with mobility impairments full and equal access to the hotel and its services. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Hudson moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims.

Standing Analysis

The court addressed the Rule 12(b)(1) motion first. To establish standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff seeking an order preventing future discrimination must show, among other things, a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff intends to return to the place or service at issue.

Gonzalez alleged that he would revisit Hudson’s website after Hudson complied with the law to learn about accessible and inaccessible features, assess whether the hotel met his needs, and determine whether the website had become compliant. The court concluded that this allegation did not reasonably show that Gonzalez intended to return to the website to book a room or use Hudson’s services. The court compared his allegations to decisions involving plaintiffs whose stated plans to revisit websites only to test legal compliance were insufficient to establish standing.

Because Gonzalez failed to satisfy the requirement of showing an intent to return, the court granted Hudson’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The ruling was based on standing and did not separately resolve Hudson’s other stated grounds for dismissal.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court stated that this was its first opportunity to identify the precise problems with Gonzalez’s pleading and that it was not yet clear that amendment would be futile. It therefore permitted Gonzalez to replead the dismissed claims.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Hudson’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Gonzalez could file an amended complaint, if at all, by April 29, 2022. The court stated that the case would be closed if he did not do so. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.