Loadholt v. Dungarees, Inc.

Background

Christopher Loadholt, who is legally blind and uses screen-reading software, sued Dungarees, Inc., an apparel company that operates Dungarees.com. He alleged that he visited the website on March 24 and April 8, 2022, intending to purchase “belts and a jacket.” According to the first amended complaint, the screen reader did not fully describe products, including their size and price, and the website required mouse use that made navigation difficult. Loadholt alleged that he could not buy the products and wanted to return to the website to browse and potentially purchase them after the site became accessible.

Loadholt asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Dungarees moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Dungarees argued that Loadholt had not adequately alleged standing, meaning a constitutionally sufficient injury that the court could address.

Standing Analysis

The court explained that a person seeking an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act must plausibly allege a past injury, a reasonable likelihood that the discriminatory treatment will continue, and a real and immediate intention to return to the place or website. For an online business, the intention to return must be supported by specific, plausible facts about prior visits and the person’s interest in the products or services offered.

The court held that the first amended complaint did not contain enough non-conclusory facts to support an inference that Loadholt intended to return to Dungarees.com. His allegations that he had visited twice, was potentially interested in some belts and a jacket, and would still like to return and potentially purchase those items were too vague. The court noted that he did not explain why he wanted those products, why he preferred Dungarees over other apparel companies or websites, or whether comparable products were unavailable elsewhere.

The court also considered factual assertions in a sworn declaration submitted with Loadholt’s opposition. Loadholt stated that he was drawn to Dungarees because of its selection of Carhartt “factory seconds,” which he said he had not found elsewhere. The court found that his own submitted Google-search results showed several other websites selling those products. The court therefore concluded that another opportunity to amend would be futile, particularly because Loadholt had already amended once after the court identified the standing problem.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni granted Dungarees’s motion to dismiss. The first amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege Article III standing, and the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the open motions and deadlines and close the case.