Langer v. The American Automobile Association, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS LANGER, Case No.: 22-CV-1519-CAB-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS 13 v. 14 THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE [Doc. No. 3] ASSOCIATION, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Chris Langer sues Defendant The American Automobile Association, Inc. 19 (“AAA”) for violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, 20 and Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1. This matter is before the Court on AAA’s 21 motion to dismiss. The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for 22 submission without oral argument. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. 23 I. Allegations in the Complaint 24 The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is “hard of hearing and needs closed captioning 25 to consume audio content such as movies, videos or tutorials.” [Doc. No. 1-2 at ¶ 1.] It 26 alleges that Defendant “The American Automobile Association offers privileges, 27 advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods, or services (‘Benefits’) to the public out 28 [sic] place of public accommodation in California as defined by the ADA.” [Id. at ¶ 16.] 1 The complaint does not provide any further details about any “Benefits” aside from 2 information provided on AAA’s website. 3 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he information on the website alone is a 4 covered Benefit, allowing patrons to learn about goods and services as well as the business 5 itself without leaving their home.” [Id. at ¶ 17.] The complaint goes on to describe some 6 of the information available on the website, including “details about [AAA] itself, location 7 and contact information; information about the prices, online ordering, deals and 8 promotions.” [Id. at ¶ 19.] The complaint does not allege that Plaintiff was unable to 9 obtain any of this information from the website. Instead, the complaint alleges only that 10 the website contained videos that “lacked closed captioning, which made him unable to 11 fully understand and consume the contents of the videos.” [Id. at ¶ 21.] The complaint 12 states that the videos on the website “provide value independently as a separate benefit and 13 failure to provide closed captioning provides an inherently disparate and unequal 14 experience to disabled customers.” [Id. at ¶ 23.] 15 Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts claims for violations of California’s 16 Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act, respectively. Both claims are premised solely on the 17 theory that AAA’s website violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). AAA 18 moves to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complaint does not allege facts 19 establishing an ADA violation and that therefore fails to state claims under the Unruh Act 20 and Disabled Persons Act.1 21 22 23 24 25 1 AAA also argues that the complaint fails to state a claim under the Unruh Act under the alternative theory that AAA engaged in intentional discrimination. Cf. Martinez v. San Diego Cnty. Credit Union, 50 Cal. 26 App. 5th 1048, 1053 (2020) (characterizing ADA violations and intentional discrimination as alternate theories for a single cause of action under the Unruh Act). The complaint, however, does not allege an 27 Unruh Act violation based on intentional discrimination, and Plaintiff’s opposition argues only that his claim should survive dismissal because he has alleged an ADA violation. Accordingly, the Court need 28 1 II. Legal Standards 2 The familiar legal standards apply here. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 3 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 4 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 5 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, the Court 6 “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the 7 light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. 8 Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). On the other hand, the Court is “not bound to 9 accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 10 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Nor is the Court “required to accept as true allegations 11 that contradict exhibits attached to the Complaint or matters properly subject to judicial 12 notice, or allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or 13 unreasonable inferences.” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 14 2010). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual 15 content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a 16 claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th 17 Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). 18 III. Discussion 19 Although Plaintiff asserts only state law claims, both claims are premised on an 20 alleged violation of the ADA, and the only question in dispute in connection with the 21 instant motion to dismiss is whether the complaint alleges a violation of the ADA. Title 22 III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals “on the basis of disability in 23 the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or 24 accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases 25 (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 12182(a). 26 Thus, to state a claim for violation of the ADA, the plaintiff must adequately allege that 27 “(1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity 28 that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was 1 denied public accommodations by the defendant because of her disability.” Molski v. M.J. 2 Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007). AAA argues that the complaint fails to 3 state a claim based on Plaintiff’s inability to access videos on AAA’s website because 4 AAA’s website is not a place of public accommodation and because the complaint fails to 5 allege a nexus between AAA’s website and AAA’s physical locations. The Court agrees. 6 As other district courts have noted when dismissing similar lawsuits filed by 7 Plaintiff, “[o]n their own, websites are not places of public accommodation.” Langer v. 8 Carvana, LLC, No. 821CV00303JLSJDE, 2021 WL 4439096, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 9 2021) (quoting Langer v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California, No. 20-CV-06015- 10 DMR, 2021 WL 148237, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021)). However, the ADA “applies to 11 the services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public 12 accommodation.” Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2019) 13 (emphasis in original). Thus, an ADA violation can arise out of the lack of accessibility of 14 a website when there is a nexus between the website and the goods and services provided 15 by a physical place of public accommodation. See id. at 905-06. 16 In Robles, the visually impaired plaintiff alleged that Domino’s Pizza’s website and 17 app violated the ADA because they were not configured to allow him to use them with 18 screen-reading software to order pizza for delivery. The Ninth Circuit held that the ADA 19 applies to Domino’s website and app because they “facilitate access to the goods and 20 services of a place of public accommodation—Domino’s physical restaurants,” and 21 “connect customers to the goods and services of Domino’s physical restaurants.” Id. at 22 905-06. Robles is distinguishable. 23 Plaintiff here alleges that he intended “to partake in the Benefits of the place of 24 public accommodation offered through [AAA’s] Website,” but he does not allege how any 25 alleged difficulties in accessing the website prohibited him from taking advantage of the 26 benefits offered by AAA’s physical places of public accommodation. Instead, Plaintiff 27 takes the position that because “Defendant has ‘brick and mortar’ stores and service 28 establishments, defendant’s website is also covered by the ADA.” [Doc. No. 5 at 2.] 1 Plaintiff cites to no authority for this proposition, which completely ignores whether there 2 is a nexus between AAA’s website and the services provided by AAA’s physical locations, 3 and it has been rejected by the majority of district courts who have considered this issue 4 since Robles. 5 The Ninth Circuit in Robles expressly declined to “decide whether the ADA covers 6 the websites or apps of a physical place of public accommodation where their 7 inaccessibility does not impede access to the goods and services of a physical location.” 8 Robles, 913 F.3d at 905 n.6. Since Robles, however, “numerous California district courts 9 have found no nexus where the complaint failed to plead that web-based barriers impeded 10 the plaintiff from accessing or ordering goods or services from a physical location.” 11 Erasmus v. Ryan A. Dunlop, D.M.D., Inc., No. 121CV01236AWISAB, 2022 WL 2805961, 12 at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2022) (citing cases). The allegations in these other district court 13 cases are similar, and their reasoning is persuasive.2 14 The complaint here does not allege that the lack of closed captioning on videos on 15 AAA’s website impeded Plaintiff’s ability to access or order goods or services from AAA’s 16 physical locations. To the contrary, it alleges that “information on the website alone is a 17 covered Benefit” and that the videos themselves “provide value independently.” [Doc. No. 18 19 2 See, e.g., Langer v. Cooke City Raceway, Inc., 2022 WL 2966172 at *10 (report and recommendation 20 subsequently adopted by district court denying motion for default judgment because Plaintiff did not 21 plausibly allege an ADA claim based on lack of closed-captioning on videos on the defendant’s website); Erasmus, 2022 WL 2805691, at *6 (finding “that the Complaint does not sufficiently state an ADA claim 22 because it does not allege that web-based barriers impeded Plaintiff from accessing or ordering goods or services from Defendant's office”); Gomez v. Corro, No. 21-CV-07085-SI, 2022 WL 1225258, at *2 (N.D. 23 Cal. Apr. 26, 2022) (dismissing ADA claim because the plaintiff did “not cite any authority within the Ninth Circuit holding that a plaintiff may bring a Title III ADA claim to challenge the inaccessibility of a 24 website where the inability to access information on the website was the sole basis of the ADA claim – 25 where the website information was the ‘service’ – and the website's inaccessibility did not separately impede access to the goods or services of the public accommodation”); Langer v. Carvana, LLC, , 2021 26 WL 4439096, at *4 (“Langer has not pleaded any nexus between Carvana's failure to provide closed captioning on videos and his ability to access a physical location, or take advantage of Carvana's products 27 and/or services; thus, he has failed to plead that he suffered an injury cognizable under the ADA.”); Langer v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California, 2021 WL 148237, at *5 (“[A] plaintiff who fails to allege 28 1 |] 1-2 at {4 17, 23.) In other words, “Plaintiff is [] essentially only alleging he was deterred 2 ||from use of the Website.” Langer v. Cooke City Raceway, Inc., No. 3 |} 121CV01488JLTBAK, 2022 WL 2966172, at *9 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2022), report and 4 || recommendation adopted, No. 121CV01488JLTBAK, 2022 WL 3348015 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5 || 12, 2022). That the alleged value of the website and videos themselves is independent of 6 ||the goods and services offered at AAA’s physical locations demonstrates that there is no 7 ||nexus between the two. Cf id. (“Plaintiff ... never alleges he wishes to avail himself of 8 ||the goods and services at the physical location, nor critically how he was unable to access 9 ||the goods and services through some feature of the website, 1.e., the nexus between the 10 || Website and the public accommodation.”). Absent such a nexus, there is no ADA violation 11 || based on any lack of accessibility of the website. 12 In sum, “[b]ecause the majority of California district courts agree that a nexus 13 ||requires web-based barriers to impede the plaintiff from accessing or ordering goods or 14 ||services from a physical location, the Complaint's allegations that Plaintiff had difficulty 15 || watching a video on Defendant’s website 1s not sufficient to allege injury under the ADA.” 16 || Erasmus, 2022 WL 2805961 at *6. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs state claims are both 17 || premised solely on the alleged existence of an ADA violation, the failure to plead an ADA 18 || violation is fatal to both claims. 19 IV. Conclusion 20 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is 21 ||GRANTED. Because Plaintiff did not request leave to amend or otherwise argue in his 22 || opposition that he is able to amend his complaint to adequately allege an ADA violation, 23 ||the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 24 It is SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: November 9, 2022 € 26 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 27 United States District Judge 28