Toro v. General Store, LLC

Background

Jasmine Toro brought a proposed class action against General Store, LLC, alleging that the company’s website, which sells jewelry and other goods, was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people. She asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Toro alleged that she visited the website twice to browse products and try to buy a pair of earrings. She claimed that access barriers prevented her from navigating the website with a keyboard and screen-reading software, determining where products and prices were located, completing a purchase, and successfully adding items to the shopping cart. She stated that she would return to the website and buy the earrings if the site became accessible.

The complaint sought an injunction requiring General Store to make the website accessible, a declaration that the website violated applicable laws, class certification, damages, interest, and fees and costs. General Store moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Toro lacked constitutional standing.

Standing and dismissal

Standing requires a plaintiff to show an injury that is real, connected to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be addressed by a favorable court decision. Because Toro sought an injunction, she also had to show a real and immediate likelihood of future harm, including a plausible intent to return to the website.

The court concluded that Toro’s amended complaint did not provide enough facts to plausibly show that she intended to return. The court relied on her allegations that she had visited only twice, nearly five months apart; that the visits occurred shortly before the lawsuit and amended complaint; and that she and her law firm had filed at least 31 virtually identical complaints in the district during the intervening period. The court viewed this broader context when evaluating whether the alleged injury was genuine rather than manufactured.

The court also found that Toro’s stated intent to return was conclusory. Her assertion that she wanted to buy the earrings and could not find the same style at other affordable retailers did not adequately establish a future injury, particularly because she acknowledged that the earrings might be available from the manufacturer. The court found her concerns about shipping from Canada speculative.

The court therefore dismissed Toro’s ADA claim for lack of standing. It held that the New York state and city claims were governed by the same standing requirements and dismissed those claims for the same reason. The court separately stated that the declaratory-relief cause of action could not proceed because a request for a declaratory judgment is not an independent cause of action.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court noted that plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend claims dismissed for lack of standing. It declined to allow another amendment here because Toro had already received an opportunity to amend in response to the standing arguments and had not identified a proposed amendment that would cure the problem.

The court granted General Store’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and all pending motions, and entered the order through Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.