Dicks v. Cooks Junction, Inc.

1

VALERIE DICKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COOKS JUNCTION, INC., Defendant.

No. 22-cv-6495 (LJL)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

April 4, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant Cook's Junction, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Cook's Junction”) moves to dismiss the amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”) filed against it by plaintiff Valerie Dicks (“Plaintiff' or “Dicks”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 13. In the alternative, Defendant moves to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). Id.

For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is denied.

BACKGROUND

The following alleged facts are drawn from the allegations in the Amended Complaint which are assumed to be true for purposes of this motion.

Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Dkt. No. 10 ¶ 2. She is and has been at all relevant times a resident of New York County. Id. ¶ 13. Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 261 Main St., Los Altos, CA 94022. Id. ¶ 16. Defendant has a brick-and-mortar location in California and operates a website with a URL of cooksjunction.com (the “Website”). Id. ¶¶ 16-17. The Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including the ability to view and purchase various types of kitchen and cooking products. Id. ¶ 17.

On multiple occasions, the last of which occurred on December 6 2022, Plaintiff visited Defendant's Website to make a purchase but was unable to do so due to a lack of accessibility features on Defendant's Website. Id. ¶ 36. Because of these missing features Plaintiff alleges that the Website was inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired customers who need screen-readers and that these access barriers denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the Website. Id.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed this action on August 1, 2022, Dkt. No. 1, and filed the Amended Complaint on December 8, 2022, Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff brings a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., on behalf of herself and a putative nationwide class of “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Cooksjunction.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Cooksjunction.com, during the relevant statutory period.” Dkt. No. 10 ¶¶ 44, 53-68. Plaintiff also brings claims on behalf of a putative class under the New York State Humans Right Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 292 et seq., the New York State Civil Rights Law § 40 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 69-108.

On January 5, 2023, Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 13. In support of the motion to dismiss, Defendant submitted an affidavit of Katherine Janes, an officer of Cook's Junction. Dkt. No. 13-1. In that affidavit, Janes states the following:

• “Cook's Junction is a foreign business limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of California on or about November 5, 2020.” Id. ¶ 2.

• “At all times relevant to this case, Cook's Junction's headquarters has been and still is located at 261 Main Street Los Altos, California, 94063.” Id. ¶ 3.

• The Website is “maintained” at Defendant's offices in California and that is “where its servers are located.” Id. ¶ 4.

• “Cook's Junction is not registered to do business in New York.” Id. ¶ 5.

• “Approximately 5.29% of Cook's Junction's total sales for five years originated unsolicited from New York residents - just 163 orders out of 3,079.” Id. ¶ 6.

• “Cook['s] Junction does not sell any of its products through third party retail stores. In fact, Cook['s] Junction does not have a line of products to sell. Cooks' Junction only sells products from third-party vendors and doesn't resell those products to any stores.” Id. ¶ 7.

• Cook's Junction does not maintain any office, employees, agents, sales agent, or any other business facility in New York, owns no real estate or personal property in New York, and does not maintain any banking or other financial accounts in New York. Id. ¶¶ 8-11.

• Cook's Junction “does not specifically advertise in New York nor does it target or seek out any New York based customers.” Id. ¶ 13.

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 17. On March 1, 2023, Defendant filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 18.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Personal Jurisdiction

“On a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 566 (2d Cir. 1996). “[T]he showing a plaintiff must make to defeat a defendant's claim that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it ‘varies depending on the procedural posture of the litigation.'” Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990)). When an evidentiary hearing is held, the plaintiff must demonstrate the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.; see also Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 567. On the other hand, if an evidentiary hearing is not held, plaintiff need make only a prima facie showing by its pleadings and affidavits that jurisdiction exists. Dorchester Fin. Sec., 722 F.3d at 85. This prima facie showing “must include an averment of facts that, if credited by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. While the court “construe[s] the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to plaintiffs,” id., the court “will not draw argumentative inferences in the plaintiff's favor” and need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2011, 714 F.3d 659, 673 (2d Cir. 2013).

In reviewing whether Plaintiff has met this burden, the court “can consider materials outside the pleadings, including affidavits and other written materials,” Jonas v. Estate of Leven, 116 F.Supp.3d 314, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), submitted by either party, see Pearson Educ., Inc. v. ABC Books LLC, 2020 WL 3547217, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2020); see also Yellow Page Solutions, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Yellow Pages Co., 2001 WL 1468168, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction based on facts “drawn from the amended complaint, affidavits, and documentary exhibits submitted by both parties” (emphasis added)).

II. Venue

“[O]n a motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), ‘the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show that venue is proper.'” Spiciarich v. Mexican Radio Corp., 2015 WL 4191532, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2015) (quoting Cartier v. Micha, Inc., 2007 WL 1187188, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2007)). “A court applies the same standard of review in Rule 12(b)(3) dismissals as Rule 12(b)(2) dismissals for lack of jurisdiction.” Fedele v. Harris, 18 F.Supp.3d 309, 316 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). “The court must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the plaintiff.” Concesionaria DHM, S.A. v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 307 F.Supp.2d 553, 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting E.P.A. ex rel. McKeown v. Port Auth., 162 F.Supp.2d 173, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). “[I]n deciding a motion to dismiss for improper venue, the ‘court may examine facts outside the complaint to determine whether venue is proper.'” Id. (quoting McKeown, 162 F.Supp.2d at 183).

DISCUSSION

I. Personal Jurisdiction

“To determine personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary in a case involving a federal question, the Court must engage in a two-step analysis.” Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2010).^[1] The court first applies the forum state's long-arm statute. See id. “If the long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction, the second step is to analyze whether personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.” Id. at 164. “Due process considerations require that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir. 2013).

Plaintiff relies on N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1) to support personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. Section 302(a)(1) states that “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state.” See Spin Master Ltd. v. 158, 463 F.Supp.3d 348, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), adhered to in part on reconsideration, 2020 WL 5350541 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2020). To establish personal jurisdiction under § 302(a)(1), “Plaintiff must allege that (1) Defendant has ‘transacted business' in New York, and (2) the claim asserted arises from that business activity.” Guglielmo v. JEGS Automotive, Inc., 2021 WL 1026168, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (quoting Eades v. Kennedy PC...