Velazquez v. Don Roberto Jewelers, Inc.

Background

Bryan Velazquez, who is visually impaired and legally blind, brought a proposed class action against Don Roberto Jewelers, Inc. He uses screen-reading software to navigate the internet. Velazquez alleged that Don Roberto’s website offered products and services for online sale but contained accessibility barriers, including an unidentified price-range button, poorly descriptive alternative text for product images, an inaccessible phone number, a non-interactive email address, improperly formatted headings and lists, missing alternative text, and other improperly identified interactive features.

Velazquez alleged that he visited the website on September 13 and 16, 2022, intending to purchase a ring as a gift, but encountered these problems. He alleged that he intended to return to the website to complete a purchase if it became accessible and requested compliance with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. His claims arose under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Don Roberto moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(3) to dismiss for improper venue. Its executive’s declaration stated that Don Roberto was not registered to do business in New York, that most of its sales occurred at physical locations in California, and that it made one website sale to a New York address in 2021 and two such sales in 2022.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court applied New York’s long-arm statute because the case raised federal questions. Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 302(a)(1), a court may exercise jurisdiction over a non-New York defendant when the defendant transacts business in New York and the claim arises from that business.

The court held that Don Roberto transacted business in New York. Its website was interactive because it allowed customers to purchase and exchange goods. The company’s own declaration established that the website had been used to make three sales to New York addresses. Although those sales represented only a small part of Don Roberto’s overall business, the court explained that section 302(a)(1) is a single-act statute, meaning one purposeful New York transaction can be enough when it has a substantial relationship to the claim.

The court also held that Velazquez’s claims arose from Don Roberto’s New York business activity. Although Velazquez did not complete a purchase, he alleged that he attempted to use the website to make one. The court found that his alleged inability to transact because of the website’s accessibility barriers created the required connection between the New York business activity and his discrimination claims.

The court further concluded that exercising jurisdiction complied with constitutional due-process requirements. Don Roberto had sufficient minimum contacts with New York because it purposefully made its goods available there. The court also found that exercising jurisdiction was reasonable. New York had an interest in the dispute, Velazquez had an interest in litigating where he resided, and the burden on Don Roberto of litigating in New York was outweighed by those considerations. The court found the interests in efficient resolution and broader social policy neutral.

Venue

The court considered venue under 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b)(2), which permits a case to be filed where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. The court held that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because Velazquez alleged that he accessed and attempted to use Don Roberto’s website there. Those attempts were the events giving rise to his claims, and he allegedly encountered the effects of the discrimination in that district.

Disposition

The court denied Don Roberto’s motion to dismiss. It denied the request based on lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the request based on improper venue. The court directed the parties to appear for a telephonic initial pretrial conference on April 25, 2024, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion. The opinion did not decide the merits of Velazquez’s Americans with Disabilities Act or New York City Human Rights Law claims.