Thorne v. Capital Music Gear LLC

Background

Braulio Thorne, who is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reader software, sued Capital Music Gear LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He brought the case for himself and a proposed class of similarly situated people and also sought a declaratory judgment.

Thorne alleged that he visited Capital Music Gear’s website on separate occasions, including December 21, 2022, to try to purchase drumsticks and related products. He alleged that the website did not work properly with screen readers, including because he could not add items to his cart or locate pricing information. He also alleged problems with unlabeled text boxes, missing alternative text, empty or broken links, redundant links, and similarly titled pages. The complaint stated that he intended to revisit the website to purchase drumsticks once the barriers were removed.

Capital Music Gear moved to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while a Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges whether the complaint adequately states a legal claim. The company submitted evidence describing its efforts to improve the website and its inability to reproduce some of the alleged problems. Thorne submitted website-accessibility reports identifying alleged remaining barriers.

Standing

The court held that Thorne lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal stake in the dispute. For an ADA claim seeking an injunction, the plaintiff must show past injury, a reasonable basis to infer that the discriminatory conduct will continue, and a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff intends to return to the business or website.

The court found that Thorne established past injury. His allegations identified a specific attempted purchase, a specific date, and specific accessibility barriers. The court also found that he showed the alleged discriminatory conduct had continued. The accessibility reports identified remaining problems after Capital Music Gear began remediation efforts, and the company’s evidence did not establish that all barriers had been cured.

The court found, however, that Thorne failed to prove that he intended to return to Capital Music Gear’s website. The complaint did not provide enough detail about the number and timing of his prior visits, why Capital Music Gear’s products or website particularly appealed to him, or any concrete plan for a future visit. His statements that he intended to return once the barriers were removed were found to be formulaic and insufficient by themselves. His general interests as a musician and percussion teacher did not link those future interests to a specific intended visit to this website.

Mootness

The court rejected Capital Music Gear’s argument that its remediation efforts made the case moot. A case is moot when there is no longer a live dispute. A defendant seeking to establish mootness through voluntary cessation must show that it is absolutely clear the challenged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur.

The court found that Capital Music Gear had not met that demanding burden. The company’s evidence did not provide enough detail about its testing or third-party auditing, and Thorne’s accessibility report identified at least four remaining issues as of May 2023. The court also found that comparing the website with other websites did not establish that Capital Music Gear’s website was accessible.

State and Local Claims

The court held that Thorne lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the New York State and New York City human-rights laws for the same reasons that he lacked standing under the ADA. To the extent the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over claims for damages under those laws, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Capital Music Gear’s motion to dismiss. Because the court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it did not address whether the complaint satisfied Rule 12(b)(6). The court gave Thorne until April 26, 2024, to file a letter seeking permission to amend the First Amended Complaint and to attach a proposed amended complaint showing the changes. The opinion states that the case will be dismissed with prejudice if he does not file the letter or cannot in good faith cure the identified deficiencies.