Tavarez v. Extract Labs Inc.

Background

Victor Tavarez brought a proposed class action against Extract Labs, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York City law. Tavarez alleged that Extract Labs’s website was inaccessible to visually impaired and legally blind people who use screen-reading software. He alleged that he visited the website several times while located in the Bronx, seeking to buy cannabis-infused gummies, but could not complete a purchase because of access barriers.

The amended complaint sought ADA injunctive relief, additional injunctive relief and money damages under the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. The claims were based on alleged violations of version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, or WCAG 2.1.

Motion to Dismiss and Mootness

Extract Labs moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that the case had become moot because, after the lawsuit began, it had redesigned its website and brought it into compliance with WCAG 2.1.

The court explained that a defendant’s voluntary correction of challenged conduct makes an ADA claim moot only when it is clear that the alleged violation is not reasonably likely to happen again and that the effects of the violation have been completely and permanently eliminated. The court also held that it could consider evidence outside the complaint in deciding this type of jurisdictional motion.

Extract Labs submitted declarations from Grant Rogers, its Director of Marketing, who had supervisory authority over the website. The court found that the first declaration provided enough detail to create a presumption that the case was moot. The declaration stated that Extract Labs had completed a redesign intended to comply with WCAG 2.1, audited the website, resolved the issues identified in the amended complaint, used continuing automated monitoring, and hired an independent WCAG expert to address emerging issues. Rogers also stated that problems involving screen-reading product descriptions, images, prices, and the website’s shopping cart had been remedied. A second declaration further responded to any suggestion that the website remained noncompliant.

Tavarez’s Evidence

Tavarez argued that dismissal was improper because the parties disputed whether the website remained inaccessible. He relied on a declaration from Robert D. Moody, who stated that he had examined the website and believed that defects remained and would continue to create barriers for people with little or no vision.

The court granted Extract Labs’s request to strike Moody’s statements as unreliable and lacking foundation. Although Moody’s declaration referred to an audit or report and an attached curriculum vitae, neither was filed with the declaration. The court found that the declaration contained only brief and inadequate statements about Moody’s qualifications and did not provide enough information about his investigative method or supporting research. Tavarez did not request permission to submit a corrected filing, seek jurisdictional discovery, or otherwise respond to these deficiencies after Extract Labs raised them. Without Moody’s evidence, the court treated Extract Labs’s detailed compliance evidence as effectively uncontested.

Ruling

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Extract Labs, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Tavarez’s federal ADA claim as moot. Because the federal claim was dismissed before trial, the court declined to exercise continuing supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The declaratory-relief claim was dismissed as moot. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and the case.