Hecht v. Magnanni Inc
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-05316
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
Hecht v. Magnanni, Judge Vyskocil denied Magnanni’s motion to dismiss an ADA website-accessibility case as moot.
The ruling allowed Irene Hecht’s ADA website-accessibility case to continue against Magnanni Inc.; it also concerned the claims brought on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion did not decide whether the website violated the ADA.
What happened
In Hecht v. Magnanni Inc., Irene Hecht alleged that Magnanni’s website was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City law. She sought an order requiring accessibility changes and damages under the city law.
Magnanni argued that it had fixed the website after the lawsuit began, leaving no live dispute for the court to decide. Hecht responded that accessibility barriers remained. The court reviewed competing affidavits and other materials because the parties disagreed about whether the website had been fully fixed and whether problems could return.
Judge Vyskocil denied Magnanni’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. She ruled that Magnanni had not shown clearly enough that the alleged problems were permanently resolved or could not reasonably recur. The opinion did not address Hecht’s New York City Human Rights Law claim because Magnanni’s motion challenged only the federal claim.
The detailed version
- Hecht v. Magnanni Inc · No. 1:20-cv-05316
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Irene Hecht brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. She alleged that Magnanni Inc.’s website, which allowed consumers to access the company’s footwear products and services, was not fully and equally accessible to blind and visually impaired people. According to the Second Amended Complaint, some website information could not be converted into text for use with screen-reading software.
Hecht asserted a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which allows a person to seek an order requiring accessibility, and a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). She sought injunctive relief under both laws and compensatory damages under the NYCHRL.
Motion and Arguments
Magnanni moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks power to hear a case. Magnanni argued that it had voluntarily corrected the alleged website problems after the lawsuit began, making the case moot—that is, leaving no continuing dispute for the court to resolve.
Hecht argued that accessibility problems continued. She submitted an affidavit from Robert Moody and an audit report identifying continuing issues that allegedly created barriers for people with little or no vision. Magnanni submitted affidavits from Andrew Penry, a company lead programmer, stating that the alleged deficiencies had either not existed or had been remedied. Magnanni also challenged Moody’s qualifications and the timing of his evidence.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that because Magnanni’s jurisdictional motion placed relevant facts in dispute, it could consider evidence outside the pleadings. Title III of the ADA provides only injunctive relief, so the claim could become moot if Magnanni completely remedied the access barriers during the case.
But voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordinarily make a case moot. Magnanni had the substantial burden of showing that it was absolutely clear the alleged wrongful conduct could not reasonably be expected to happen again. The parties’ competing evidence created a factual dispute about whether Magnanni’s changes actually fixed the alleged ADA violations and whether the changes would continue after the lawsuit ended.
The court also stated that Magnanni’s arguments about Moody’s qualifications were closer to trial-related evidence issues than to questions that should be resolved on this early motion to dismiss. The court did not decide whether Magnanni’s website ultimately complied with the ADA.
Disposition
The court denied Magnanni’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and Magnanni was ordered to respond to the Second Amended Complaint by April 14, 2022. The opinion did not address the NYCHRL claim because Magnanni’s motion papers challenged only the ADA claims.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.