Jaquez v. 3Wishes.com, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-02568
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jaquez v. 3Wishes.com, Inc., Judge Caproni ordered an amended complaint or explanation addressing whether Jaquez has standing to pursue his website-accessibility claim.
Ramon Jaquez’s Americans with Disabilities Act case against 3Wishes.com, Inc.; the order also concerns the proposed group of similarly situated people, although the opinion does not state that any class was certified.
What happened
The case is Jaquez v. 3Wishes.com, Inc. Ramon Jaquez alleged that the company’s website was not accessible to visually impaired people, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. He brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.
The court questioned whether Jaquez adequately showed that he had standing—the legal requirement of a concrete injury that the court can address. The court said the complaint’s allegations likely were too general under a recent appeals-court decision. It ordered Jaquez to file an amended complaint or explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing by September 8, 2022.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order on August 25, 2022. The order did not dismiss the case; it required Jaquez to provide more information or arguments about standing.
The detailed version
- Jaquez v. 3Wishes.com, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02568
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 25, 2022
Background
Ramon Jaquez filed this action against 3Wishes.com, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. He alleged, among other things, that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its website accessible to visually impaired people.
Standing Issue
The court explained that constitutional standing requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is concrete, particularized, actual or imminent; a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct; and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. Standing is a threshold requirement for the court’s authority to hear a case. The court may consider standing on its own, without waiting for a party to raise the issue.
For a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act seeking an order requiring future changes, the plaintiff must allege a past injury, facts supporting a reasonable inference that the discriminatory treatment will continue, and facts supporting a reasonable inference that the plaintiff intends to return to the location or website at issue. The court also cited an appeals-court decision holding that conclusory, boilerplate allegations about harm from failing to accommodate visually impaired people were insufficient to establish standing.
Order
The court stated that the allegations in Jaquez’s complaint likely failed to adequately allege standing because they were at least as conclusory as the allegations found insufficient in that appeals-court decision. The court ordered Jaquez, by September 8, 2022, either to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges standing or to show cause—give a legally sufficient explanation—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed at that time. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.