Contreras v. Pure Seasons, Inc.

Background

Yensy Contreras sued Pure Seasons, Inc., individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. She alleged that Pure Seasons did not provide a fully accessible website for visually impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court held a conference after individual employees submitted letters on behalf of the unrepresented defendant stating that the website was fully accessible. Contreras did not respond to either submission. At the conference, her lawyer stated that neither he nor Contreras had visited the website since the lawsuit began. The court strongly encouraged Contreras to visit the website she alleged was inaccessible.

Service of Process

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the complaint and summons within 90 days after filing. If service is not completed, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice against the defendant or order service by a specified deadline, after notice to the plaintiff.

The court explained that proper service is also connected to personal jurisdiction—the court’s authority over the defendant. Without proper service, the court may lack authority to grant relief against Pure Seasons, including a default judgment.

Court’s Order

The court directed Contreras to serve Pure Seasons and file proof of service on the docket by May 20, 2022. It did not rule on whether Pure Seasons’s website was accessible or whether Contreras’s disability-law claims were valid.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil reminded Pure Seasons that a corporation may not appear in court without a lawyer. The court warned that, once properly served, Pure Seasons’s failure to retain counsel could be grounds for entering a default judgment for failure to defend. After service and filing of proof of service, the court stated that it would refer the matter to the assigned magistrate judge for settlement purposes by separate order.