Velazquez v. Home Controls, Inc.

Background

Bryan Velazquez, who is legally blind, sued Home Controls, Inc. in a proposed class action. Home Controls sells home-automation products through its website, www.homecontrols.com. Velazquez alleged that technical barriers prevented him from successfully navigating the website with screen-reading software and from learning about shipping discounts. He said he visited the website twice, on April 4 and April 15, 2022, to browse home-security and home-automation products and determine whether he wanted to purchase them. He also alleged that he intended to visit the website again if the accessibility barriers were fixed.

Velazquez asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought an injunction requiring Home Controls to make the website accessible, a declaration that the website discriminated against blind people, damages, interest, and fees and costs. He purported to represent a nationwide class and a New York City subclass.

Motion and jurisdictional standard

Home Controls moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Velazquez did not have Article III standing. A Rule 12(c) motion based on subject-matter jurisdiction is treated like a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. A plaintiff seeking an injunction must also show a real and immediate threat of future injury.

The ADA claim

The court held that Velazquez had not plausibly alleged that he intended to return to Home Controls’ website. The court acknowledged that he alleged two visits, an interest in the products, and difficulties using the website. But it found those allegations too vague and formulaic, particularly because he did not explain how he learned about the website, whether other websites sold similar products, or why he would definitely return after the barriers were removed.

The court also considered the broader context that Velazquez and his counsel had filed more than one hundred similar website-accessibility lawsuits. It stated that the frequency and copy-and-paste nature of the complaints required scrutiny of whether the allegations adequately showed actual or imminent injury. The court concluded that Velazquez had not shown a concrete and particularized injury sufficient for standing and dismissed the ADA claim for lack of standing.

The court did not decide Home Controls’ separate argument that a company operating only a website is not a place of public accommodation under the ADA. Because it found that Velazquez lacked standing, it did not reach that issue.

New York City Human Rights Law claim

The court held that the New York City Human Rights Law claim was subject to the same standing requirements. Because Velazquez lacked standing for the ADA claim, the court dismissed the parallel city-law claim on the same grounds.

The court also noted that the request for a declaratory judgment could not proceed as an independent cause of action because a request for declaratory relief is a form of remedy, not a separate claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

Velazquez had already amended his complaint after Home Controls raised the standing issue, and he did not request another opportunity to amend or identify a proposed amendment that would establish standing. The court therefore did not permit him to replead the dismissed claims.

The court granted Home Controls’ motion for judgment on the pleadings with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and all pending motions, and entered the order on July 19, 2023.