Zinnamon v. Terran, LLC

Background

Warren Zinnamon filed the case on behalf of himself and a proposed class of legally blind individuals. The first complaint named Terran LLC d/b/a ColorIt. Zinnamon later amended the complaint to name Profound Color, LLC d/b/a ColorIt as the defendant. The first amended complaint alleged that Zinnamon is visually impaired and legally blind, uses screen-reading software to access the internet, and could not have a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person because of accessibility problems on the defendant’s website.

Zinnamon asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that he had visited the website on multiple occasions to make a purchase and intended to visit it again in the near future if it became accessible.

Standing analysis

Profound Color moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when a federal court lacks authority to hear a case. The court explained that Article III of the Constitution requires a plaintiff to show an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct; and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury.

Because Zinnamon sought injunctive relief, he also had to show a real and immediate threat that the alleged injury would happen again. The court relied on the Second Circuit’s decision in Calcano, which held that general statements about past visits and an intention to return are not enough without specific factual allegations.

The court found this case materially similar to Calcano. Zinnamon did not allege what he intended to purchase, why he intended to purchase it from Profound Color’s website, or even what products the website offered. The court concluded that his statements about returning to the website were conclusory and did not plausibly establish an injury. Because standing requirements for the New York City Human Rights Law claims are the same, the court dismissed those claims for the same reason.

Disposition

The court granted Profound Color’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the first amended complaint. The court stated that the dismissal was with prejudice because the relevant Second Circuit decision was available when Zinnamon filed the amended complaint and he still had not identified facts that could establish standing. The order resolved the pleaded claims without deciding whether the website actually violated either law.