Mejico v. Alba Web Designs, LLC

515 F.Supp.3d 424

Brittney MEJICO, Plaintiff,

v.ALBA WEB DESIGNS, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 7:20CV00039

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.

Signed January 25, 2021

Linda Leigh Strelka, Thomas Eugene Strelka, Strelka Employment Law, Roanoke, VA, Scott Jason Ferrell, Pro Hac Vice, Victoria Campbell Knowles, Pro Hac Vice, Pacific Trial Attorneys, P.C., Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiff.

Andrew Paul Connors, Darkhorse Law PLLC, Lynchburg, VA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Glen E. Conrad, Senior United States District Judge

Brittney Mejico filed this action against Alba Web Designs, LLC ("Alba"), alleging that Alba's website violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 – 12189. The case is presently before the court on Alba's second motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the following reasons, both motions will be denied with respect to Mejico's claim under the ADA.

Background

The following facts, taken from the amended complaint, are accepted as true for purposes of the pending motions. See Kenny v. Wilson, 885 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2018) ("We accept the facts of the complaint as true as we would in context of a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge because defendants' motions to dismiss are facial challenges to standing that do not dispute the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint."); Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The standard of review for Rule 12(c) motions [for judgment on the pleadings] is the same as that under Rule 12(b)(6).").

Defendant Alba is a limited liability company based in Blacksburg, Virginia. Am. Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 23. The company operates a website, 500labels.com (the "Website"), through which it sells personalized return address labels. Id. ¶¶ 3, 7.

Plaintiff Mejico is a blind resident of California. Id. ¶ 6. Because of her visual impairment, Mejico uses a screen reader to access the internet and read website content. Id. Screen readers assist the blind in accessing websites by vocalizing information on a computer screen. Id. ¶ 12. "Unless websites are designed to be read by screen reading software, blind persons are unable to fully access websites and the information, products and services ... contained thereon." Id.

Mejico has attempted to utilize the Website on multiple occasions. Id. ¶ 19. However, "numerous access barriers" have prevented her from fully using the Website and completing a purchase. Id. ¶¶ 19, 21. The barriers include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) empty or missing form labels; (2) missing document language; (3) redundant links; (4) unlabeled edit fields; (5) unlabeled inks; and (6) empty links. Id. ¶ 17. Additionally, the Website "offers an order form in pdf format that is only partially readable by a screen reader" and must be printed, completed by hand, and mailed to Alba. Id. ¶ 20. Mejico is unable to complete the form without obtaining sighted assistance. Id. According to Mejico, "[t]his causes not only delay ... on the basis of her disability, but it also causes frustration, embarrassment and disappointment" since it requires her to seek sighted assistance to complete a basic task. Id.

Mejico alleges that she genuinely wants to avail herself of the goods and services offered on the Website for both personal and professional reasons. Id. ¶ 7. Because of her vision impairment, Mejico cannot independently handwrite her address on envelopes. Id. Consequently, she prefers to use printed address labels rather than to wait for a sighted person to assist her. Id. Additionally, as a member of the National Federation of the Blind, Mejico assists with fundraising efforts that regularly require printed labels for group mailings. Id. Mejico alleges that she "could, and would, use Defendant's Website to aid in these tasks if it were accessible to her." Id. However, "each time Plaintiff has attempted to access and complete a purchase on Defendant's Website, she has been unable to because of the accessibility barriers preventing blind users' full and equal access." Id.

Mejico also describes herself as a "tester" who visits places to determine whether they comply with the ADA. Id. ¶ 8. Mejico has filed multiple lawsuits against operators of commercial websites, and she "intends to continue to engage in such advocacy work into the foreseeable future to ensure that Defendant's commercial Website and others are fully and equally enjoyable to and usable by visually-impaired persons, including herself." Id.

Procedural History

On January 15, 2020, Mejico filed this action against Alba, alleging violations of Title III of the ADA (Count I) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 – 52 (Count II). Alba subsequently moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for judgment on the pleadings. Mejico opposed Alba's motions and alternatively requested leave to amend her complaint to address the standing issues raised in the motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2020, the court conducted a hearing on Alba's motions via teleconference. During the hearing, Mejico once again requested leave to amend her complaint. By order entered May 13, 2020, Mejico was given fourteen days to file an amended complaint. Alba's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted as to the state statutory claim asserted in Count II and taken under advisement with respect to the ADA claim asserted in Count I.

On May 26, 2020, Mejico filed an amended complaint against Alba. Mejico claims that "[t]he Website is a public accommodation within the definition of Title III of the ADA" and that it is unlawfully inaccessible to patrons who are visually impaired. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 25. She seeks injunctive relief, in addition to costs and attorneys' fees.

In response to the amended complaint, Alba filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case is presently before the court on that motion and the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motions have been fully briefed and argued and are now ripe for disposition.

Standards of Review

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a defendant to move for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has explained that defendants may challenge subject matter jurisdiction in one of two ways: "facially or factually." Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2017). In this case, Alba makes a facial challenge, arguing that the amended complaint fails to allege facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction can be based. Id. In that scenario, "the plaintiff is ‘afforded the same procedural protection as she would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6) consideration.’ " Id. (quoting Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) ). The facts alleged in the amended complaint are accepted as true, and the motion must be denied if the pleading alleges sufficient facts to invoke the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

Rule 12(c) permits a defendant to move for judgment on the pleadings. "The standard of review for Rule 12(c) motions is the same as that under Rule 12(b)(6)." Drager, 741 F.3d at 474. Thus, the court is required to accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 353 (4th Cir. 2014). The motion must be denied if the amended complaint "states a plausible claim for relief." Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ).

Discussion

Title III of the ADA provides that "[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination is defined to include "a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services."¹ Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). The applicable regulations define "auxiliary aids and services" to include "screen reader software," "accessible electronic and information technology," or "other effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to individuals who are blind or have low vision." 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(2).

In moving to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Alba argues that Mejico lacks standing to pursue her ADA claim. Alternatively, Alba argues that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate because the Website is not a "place of public accommodation" subject to Title III's requirements.

I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The court will first address Alba's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to certain "Cases" and "Controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. "One element of the case-or-controversy requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue." Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, Article III standing is a "subject matter jurisdiction issue." Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 777 F.3d 712, 715 (4th Cir. 2015).

In order to possess standing to sue under Article III, "a plaintiff must sufficiently allege the three elements identified by the Supreme Court." Hutton v. Nat'l Bd. of Exam's in Optometry, Inc., 892 F.3d 613, 619 (4th Cir. 2018). "That is, a plaintiff must allege that they have: ‘(1) suffered an injury-in-fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and ...