Cromitie v. Imperial Wholesale, Inc.

Background

Seana Cromitie brought a proposed class action against Imperial Wholesale, Inc., alleging that Imperial’s website, which sells table linens, was not fully accessible to visually impaired and legally blind people. She 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.

Cromitie alleged that she uses screen-reading software and visited the website three times in 2022 intending to shop for cloth tablecloths and dinner napkins. She claimed that the website had access barriers, including images that were not accurately described, improperly labeled titles, pages that were not distinguishable from one another, and broken links. She alleged that she wanted to return to browse and potentially purchase products after the website became accessible.

Imperial moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Imperial argued that Cromitie lacked constitutional standing—the required connection between a plaintiff, an alleged injury, and the requested relief.

Standing and the ADA claim

The court explained that standing requires an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. In website-accessibility cases, the court said, a plaintiff must provide nonconclusory and plausible facts supporting an inference that the plaintiff intends to return to the particular website. Relevant facts may include the frequency of past visits and the plaintiff’s specific interest in the products or services offered there.

The court held that Cromitie’s amended complaint did not provide enough particularized facts. Although she alleged three visits and a general interest in tablecloths and napkins, she did not identify particular products she viewed or wanted to view, explain how she found the website, or provide other specific details about her experience. The court also found that her general statement that she wanted to return to browse and potentially purchase products did not plausibly establish an intent to return.

Cromitie submitted a sworn declaration with additional allegations in opposition to the motion. She said that she had been looking for inexpensive, good-quality cloth napkins and tablecloths and that the website appeared to offer products fitting those criteria. The court found that these allegations still lacked specific factual details and did not establish standing.

The court also considered the similarity between Cromitie’s allegations and allegations in complaints she filed concerning other websites. It found that the repeated language and identical alleged website problems further supported its conclusion that her claims of injury were implausible. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim for lack of standing. Because it resolved the case on standing, it did not decide Imperial’s separate argument that the website was not a place of public accommodation under the ADA.

Other claims

The court held that the New York City Human Rights Law claim was subject to the same standing requirements as the ADA claim. Because Cromitie lacked standing under the ADA, the court dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law claim for lack of standing.

The court also dismissed the third cause of action, labeled “Declaratory Relief.” It explained that requesting a declaratory judgment does not independently establish a case or controversy or create an independent cause of action.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied leave to amend further. Although courts generally allow amendment after dismissing a complaint for lack of standing, Cromitie had already been allowed to amend after Imperial first raised the standing issue, and she did not identify proposed changes that would cure the problem.

The court concluded that Imperial’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and directed the clerk to close the case.