Cordero v. Polar Electro Inc.

Background

Rafael Cordero brought a proposed class action against Polar Electro Inc. and Polar Electro Oy. He alleges that the defendants’ website, which sells fitness watches and related goods, was not fully accessible to visually impaired and legally blind people. Cordero uses screen-reading software and alleges that, during three visits to the website in 2022, he encountered barriers including an inaccessible product filter, links that did not work, and no screen-reader announcement when an item was added to the shopping cart. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York City Human Rights Law, along with a claim for declaratory relief.

Motion to Dismiss

Polar Electro Inc. moved to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Polar argued that it was not a proper defendant because an Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers search result identified Polar Electro Oy as the website’s registrant. Cordero opposed the motion and submitted website material directing customers to return purchases to Polar Electro Inc. at an address in Bethpage, New York, as well as a company profile linking “Polar Electro” to the website and that address.

The court did not decide whether to take judicial notice of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers record. Instead, it held that even if the record could be considered, Polar Electro Inc. had not established that the registration showed ownership—much less exclusive ownership—of the website. The court found that Cordero’s submissions indicated that Polar Electro Inc. might still own or operate the website. At the pleading stage, and viewing the facts in Cordero’s favor, the court could not conclude that Polar Electro Oy was the website’s exclusive owner. The court also did not consider a declaration submitted by Polar Electro Inc. for the first time with its reply brief.

Service of Polar Electro Oy

The first amended complaint named Polar Electro Oy as a defendant on September 9, 2022. The Clerk’s Office issued an electronic summons on October 21, 2022, but Cordero had not filed proof that Polar Electro Oy was served, and Polar Electro Oy had not appeared.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The court therefore ordered Cordero, within seven days, to show in writing why the case against Polar Electro Oy should not be dismissed. The court specifically required Cordero to address the nearly one-year period during which service had not been completed.

Disposition

The court denied Polar Electro Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Separately, it ordered Cordero to file a letter showing cause why the action against Polar Electro Oy should not be dismissed. The order did not itself dismiss Polar Electro Oy from the case.