Himelda Mendez v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC

Background

Himelda Mendez, who is legally blind, sued Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She alleged that Victoria’s Secret gift cards were not accessible to blind or visually impaired people because they did not include information in braille. Her Amended Complaint sought injunctive relief and also included state and municipal law claims.

Victoria’s Secret moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court stayed the case while the Second Circuit considered similar ADA cases. After the Second Circuit decided those appeals in Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd., the court gave Mendez an opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint. Mendez did not file one, so the court decided the pending motion to dismiss.

Standing

The court held that Mendez had not established standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal injury to bring a case in federal court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a court must dismiss a claim when the plaintiff lacks standing and therefore the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

For an ADA claim seeking an injunction, the plaintiff must allege a past ADA injury, facts supporting a reasonable inference that the discrimination will continue, and facts supporting a reasonable inference that the plaintiff intends to return to the location. The court found Mendez’s allegations too conclusory. She alleged that she had previously been a customer, lived close to at least one Victoria’s Secret location, and intended to buy an accessible gift card when one became available. But the court found that this language did not plausibly show that she intended to return to a Victoria’s Secret store. The court noted that the allegations were identical to allegations the Second Circuit had found insufficient in Calcano.

Disposition

The court granted Victoria’s Secret’s motion to dismiss because Mendez lacked standing to bring the ADA claim. Because the federal claim was dismissed for lack of standing, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and municipal law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The court dismissed Mendez’s Amended Complaint with prejudice. It directed the clerk to remove the phrase “on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption, stating that the dismissal operated only between Mendez and Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC. The clerk was also directed to terminate any open motions and close the case.