Goldberg v. Stein Saks, PLLC

Background

Mark Goldberg, who is visually impaired and legally blind, uses screen-reading software to access the Internet. He alleged that Stein Saks, PLLC’s website could be accessed only with a mouse and that contact information displayed in plain text was inaccessible to his assistive technology. Goldberg said he had visited the website while seeking possible legal representation for an assault on the New York subway system.

Goldberg brought a proposed class action 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. He initially proceeded without a lawyer but later obtained counsel and filed an amended complaint. Stein Saks moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Goldberg lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because he lacked constitutional standing.

Standing and claims

Article III standing requires a plaintiff to show an injury that is concrete and particularized, traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable court decision. In website-accessibility cases, the court explained, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts supporting an inference that the plaintiff intends to return to the website, based on factors such as past visits and an ongoing interest in the website’s services.

The court concluded that Goldberg’s allegations did not plausibly establish an injury in fact. The amended complaint did not state how many times he tried to access the website or when he did so. It also did not provide particularized facts about how he learned of the firm, why he believed it could represent him in his assault case, whether he looked for comparable legal services, or why the firm’s services were preferable.

The court also considered an affidavit Goldberg submitted with his opposition. The affidavit supplied facts not included in the amended complaint and contradicted the allegation that he had been unable to contact Stein Saks, because it indicated that he had been in contact with, or had ways to contact, the firm’s attorneys through his employment. The court further found that Goldberg’s alleged intention to return to the website was too conclusory and speculative. It was implausible that he would seek Stein Saks’s representation in a future Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit while suing the firm for an accessibility violation, and returning merely to obtain contact information for the pending lawsuit would improperly manufacture standing.

The court therefore dismissed Goldberg’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim for lack of standing. Because the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims were subject to the same standing requirements, the court dismissed those claims for lack of standing as well. After dismissing the sole federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the New York State Civil Rights Law claim. The court also dismissed the request for declaratory relief, explaining that requesting a declaration does not by itself establish a case or controversy or create an independent claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied Goldberg leave to amend. It noted that he had already been allowed to amend after receiving notice of the alleged deficiencies, and that the court had described the amendment as his last opportunity to address issues raised in Stein Saks’s pre-motion letter. The court also noted that Goldberg did not request another amendment and did not identify proposed changes that would establish standing.

The court granted Stein Saks’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, denied leave to amend, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and closed the case.