Tavarez v. Moo Organic Chocolates, LLC

Background

Victoriano Tavarez, who is legally blind and uses screen-reading software, sued Moo Organic Chocolates, LLC, an online chocolate retailer. He alleged that the website had accessibility barriers: his screen reader did not fully read product descriptions or prices and did not tell him when an item had been added to the cart. He alleged that these barriers prevented him from buying Moo Organic’s Natural Roasted Almond Dark Chocolate Mini Bars. He asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, including on behalf of similarly situated people.

The court had previously held that stand-alone websites qualify as places of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In that earlier decision, the court also raised on its own whether Tavarez had adequately alleged Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient injury and a real likelihood of future harm. Tavarez moved for permission to file a second amended complaint. Moo Organic moved to have the earlier website ruling certified for immediate appellate review.

Permission to Amend and Standing

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. An amendment may be denied if it would be futile, meaning the proposed complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss.

The court held that allowing Tavarez to amend would not necessarily be futile. The proposed complaint alleged three visits to Moo Organic’s website, specific accessibility problems, an inability to complete a purchase, an interest in a particular product, and an intention to return to the website and transact once the barriers were fixed. If those allegations were accurate, the court concluded, they were sufficient to establish standing at the pleading stage.

The court nevertheless expressed significant doubts about the accuracy and plausibility of the allegations. It noted that Tavarez had filed approximately 100 website-accessibility lawsuits over two days and questioned why he had developed a particular interest in Moo Organic’s chocolate. The court also noted that the proposed complaint added details about his visits and intended purchase. Because standing depended on factual allegations whose accuracy the court questioned, it granted permission to amend but authorized jurisdictional discovery directed only to whether Tavarez has standing. All other discovery remained stayed.

Interlocutory Appeal

The court denied Moo Organic’s request to certify the earlier public-accommodation ruling for interlocutory appeal. Such certification requires a controlling legal question, a substantial ground for disagreement, and a finding that an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation.

The court found that these requirements were not met. Even if an appellate ruling favored Moo Organic on whether a stand-alone website is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, it would not necessarily dispose of Tavarez’s New York City Human Rights Law claim, which was based on the same facts. The court also found no substantial ground for disagreement about the federal disability law’s application to stand-alone websites, noting that most other judges in the district had reached the same conclusion and that Moo Organic had not presented arguments the court had not already considered.

Order

The court granted Tavarez’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and denied Moo Organic’s motion for interlocutory appeal. It directed Tavarez to file the proposed complaint by November 28, 2023, ordered that jurisdictional discovery be completed by January 16, 2023, and scheduled a status conference for January 20, 2023. The opinion states those deadlines as written, although the 2023 amendment deadline appears inconsistent with the November 21, 2022 decision date.