Campbell v. Gallery Model Homes, Inc.

Background

Jovan Campbell alleges that Gallery Model Homes, Inc. violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state laws by failing to make its website accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Campbell alleges that she is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reading software. She claims that, on several occasions, she could not purchase a bed through Gallery’s website because of alleged access barriers, including images without alternative text, a disorienting pop-up window, inadequate instructions for interactive features, and a requirement that users complete transactions with a mouse. She seeks certification of a nationwide class and a New York subclass.

Gallery is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It operates three retail stores in Texas and a website that offers to ship goods to every state in the continental United States. Gallery’s operations manager stated that Gallery does not specifically target states other than Texas, owns no property, and maintains no office or agents in New York.

Personal Jurisdiction

Gallery moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which permits dismissal when the court lacks personal jurisdiction—the authority to decide a case involving the defendant. The court applied New York’s long-arm statute, which allows jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant that transacts business in New York when the claim arises from that business.

The court held that Gallery’s website was fully interactive because it allowed customers to purchase and exchange goods. Gallery offered to ship products anywhere in the United States and did not dispute Campbell’s allegation that it conducted business with New York residents. The court therefore found at least a reasonable probability that the website had been used for commercial transactions with New York customers.

The court also found the required connection between those transactions and Campbell’s claim. Campbell alleged that Gallery sold products through the website to New York customers who could navigate it while displaying the same website to her without providing equivalent access. The court concluded that this alleged discrimination had a substantial relationship to Gallery’s New York business transactions. It further held that Gallery had sufficient contacts with New York for exercising personal jurisdiction to satisfy constitutional due-process requirements. The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied.

Forum Non Conveniens and Transfer

Gallery also sought dismissal based on forum non conveniens, a doctrine concerning whether another forum would be more convenient. The court treated the request as one to transfer the case rather than dismiss it because the relevant federal statute provides for transfer to another federal district when appropriate.

The court recognized that the case could have been brought in the Southern District of Texas, where Gallery is domiciled. But Gallery had to show by clear and convincing evidence that convenience and the interests of justice strongly favored transfer. The court reasoned that transferring the case to Texas would primarily shift any travel burden from Gallery to Campbell. Because Gallery did not meet its evidentiary burden, the motion based on forum non conveniens was denied.

Venue

Gallery alternatively moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of Texas. The court held that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which permits a case to proceed where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Campbell resides in the district and alleged that she accessed and attempted to use Gallery’s website there. The court therefore denied the motion to transfer venue.

Disposition

The court denied Gallery’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 19. The order addressed personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and venue; it did not decide the merits of Campbell’s claims that Gallery violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.