ERIE – A federal judge in Erie ruled that a visually impaired man’s lawsuit against a California clothier will proceed, surviving a motion to dismiss that the company had filed.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Susan Paradise Baxter issued her opinion on Jan. 29, paving the way for plaintiff Anthony Hammond Murphy’s lawsuit versus Humbolt Clothing Co, Inc. to continue.
In his lawsuit, Murphy, who is legally blind, alleged that he unable to use the defendant’s website to shop for clothes, since it is largely incompatible with screen reader programs like the one he uses.
On March 23, 2020, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the defendant for alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, since it failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with screen reader programs, thereby “depriving individuals who are partially sighted, visually impaired or totally blind the benefits of the goods, content, and services of its online store.” Murphy requested declaratory and injunctive relief as well as an award of damages, costs of suit, and attorneys’ fees.
On Aug. 11, 2020, Humbolt filed the pending motion to dismiss, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction as well as improper venue, while Murphy filed a reply brief in opposition to the motion on Aug. 28, 2020.
As to the issue of personal jurisdiction, Baxter said the plaintiff’s attempt to establish minimum-level contacts to Pennsylvania with the website did not pass muster.
“To the extent that plaintiff attempts to establish the requisite minimum contacts through his own efforts to utilize defendant’s website and/or through his attorney’s efforts to do so, the Court finds that these contacts are also insufficient. As noted, personal jurisdiction must arise from the defendant’s own purposeful targeting of the forum state, not the unilateral activities of others,” Baxter said.
“This is not to say, however, that the complaint should be dismissed at the present time for lack of in personam jurisdiction. As noted, courts are directed to permit jurisdictional discovery unless the plaintiff's claim is ‘clearly frivolous.’ That is not the case here, as plaintiff’s factual allegations are sufficient to suggest ‘with reasonable particularity’ the ‘possible existence of the requisite contacts’ between the defendant and this Commonwealth.”
Baxter opened the possibility of jurisdictional discovery being conducted and thus, denied that part of the defendant’s dismissal motion without prejudice.
As to the tenet of dismissal for improper venue, Baxter denied that as well.
“Defendant argues that the event or omission from which the complaint arose was its alleged failure to install software in California that facilitated access and use of its website by visually disabled persons. But no putative Title III violation could occur unless, by virtue of these events or omissions, a disabled individual was denied the ‘full and equal enjoyment’ of the website’s ‘goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations,” Baxter stated.
“Here, that denial allegedly occurred when plaintiff, from a location in Erie, Pennsylvania, was unable to access defendant’s online store as a result of defendant’s failure to utilize screen reader compatible technology. In this Court’s view, plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to show that a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to his claim occurred in this judicial district.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-00058
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com