Dicks v. Cooks Junction, Inc.

Background

Valerie Dicks alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and requires screen-reading software to read website content. She alleged that she visited Cooks Junction’s website several times, most recently on December 6, 2022, intending to make a purchase but could not do so because the website lacked accessibility features. She claimed that the website was not independently usable by blind and visually impaired customers and denied her full and equal access to its goods and services.

Dicks asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of herself and a proposed nationwide class. She also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Cooks Junction moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning that it argued the court lacked authority over the company. In the alternative, it moved under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, meaning that it argued the case was filed in the wrong federal district.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court analyzed New York’s long-arm statute, which permits jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant that transacts business in New York when the claim arises from that business activity. The court found the first requirement satisfied because Cooks Junction operated an interactive website that allowed people, including New York residents, to shop for and purchase cooking supplies. Cooks Junction’s affidavit stated that approximately 163 sales, or 5.29% of its total sales over five years, originated from New York residents.

The court held that these contacts showed purposeful use of the benefits of doing business in New York. It rejected the argument that the company avoided jurisdiction because it did not specifically advertise or target New York customers. The court stated that the absence of targeted advertising did not prevent jurisdiction when the company’s products were readily available for sale to New York customers.

The court also found the required connection between the New York business activity and Dicks’s claims. Dicks alleged that Cooks Junction conducted transactions with New York customers while displaying the same website to her but denying her the access that other customers had because of the website’s accessibility barriers. The court concluded that this alleged unequal treatment created a sufficient connection between the company’s New York transactions and Dicks’s claims.

The court further concluded that exercising jurisdiction was consistent with constitutional due-process requirements concerning a defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state.

Venue

The court held that venue was proper under the federal venue statute because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District of New York. Dicks alleged that she accessed and attempted to use Cooks Junction’s website from within that district and experienced the alleged discrimination there.

The court distinguished a decision involving a website tester who visited a website only to assess its compliance and did not intend to transact business. According to the court, Dicks instead alleged that she intended to purchase goods, had tried to do so repeatedly, and was unable to purchase them because of the website’s alleged noncompliance. The court noted that this case concerned venue, not whether a tester had suffered an injury sufficient to establish standing.

Disposition

The court denied Cooks Junction’s motion to dismiss. The ruling rejected both the challenge to personal jurisdiction and the alternative challenge to venue. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion docket entry.