Camacho v. Vanderbilt Univ., 18 Civ. 10694 (KPF)
| Decision Date | 04 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | 18 Civ. 10694 (KPF) |
| Parties | JASON CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Jason Camacho claims that a website operated by Defendant Vanderbilt University fails to comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (the "ADA"); the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297 (the "NYSHRL"); the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 8-131 (the "NYCHRL"), because the website denies equal access to visually impaired customers. Defendant moves to dismiss under two different subparts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b): Rule 12(b)(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In relevant part, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims do not arise out of business it has transacted in the state of New York, and that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring an ADA claim. For the reasons set forth below, the Court disagrees on both counts. Defendant's motion is therefore denied.
Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind individual who resides in Brooklyn, New York. (SAC ¶¶ 2, 20). Plaintiff attends the Catholic Guild for the Blind, where he takes college preparation courses. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 4). Plaintiff is interested in attending a four-year college. (Id. at ¶ 5).
Defendant is a university that is incorporated in the state of Tennessee, with its principal place of business and campus in Nashville, Tennessee. (SAC ¶ 21; Gaines Decl. ¶ 3). Defendant has no offices or property in New York, nor does it hold any physical classes or seminars in New York. (Gaines Decl. ¶¶ 5-7). Defendant operates the website www.vanderbilt.edu (the "Website"). (SAC ¶ 22). The Website provides a variety of information about Defendant, including information about the school location, its curriculum and programs of instruction, tuition and expenses, and available financial aid. (Id. at ¶ 31). In addition, the Website allows prospective students to schedule visits andtours and to request additional information from admissions staff, but it does not allow them to schedule meetings with Vanderbilt representatives. (SAC ¶ 10; Gaines Decl. ¶ 16; Tener Decl. ¶ 4). Prospective students may not apply for admission or financial aid through the Website (Gaines Decl. ¶ 17; Tener Decl. ¶ 5), but current students may pay tuition and other costs through the Website. (SAC ¶ 10).2 The Website also features a financial aid calculator and net price calculator, which allow prospective students to input information to receive estimates of the financial aid they might receive if they were to attend Defendant's school and the total cost of attending Defendant's school. (Id.; Terner Decl. ¶¶ 6-8). The Website explicitly states that estimates provided by the calculator are not binding and may not be matched by Defendant. (Terner Decl. ¶¶ 6-8).
In the fall of 2018, Defendant participated in approximately 2,670 recruitment events across the country. (Gaines Decl. ¶ 8). One of these events was a college fair that took place at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York City in November 2018 (the "College Fair"). (SAC ¶ 17; Crespo Decl. ¶ 3). Defendant's employees operated a booth at the College Fair to solicit prospective students from New York State. (SAC ¶ 17; Crespo Decl. ¶ 4). Plaintiff attended the College Fair to obtain information about the collegesparticipating in the event. (SAC ¶¶ 33-34; Camacho Decl. ¶¶ 6-7). Plaintiff spoke with representatives from several colleges at the College Fair, but he does not claim to have spoken with any of Defendant's representatives. (SAC ¶¶ 34-35; Camacho Decl. ¶¶ 6-8). Defendant's representatives do not recall interacting with Plaintiff or any other visually impaired person at the College Fair. (Crespo Decl. ¶ 5).
After attending the College Fair, Plaintiff visited the Website to gain additional information about Defendant's school. (SAC ¶ 35). To browse the Website, he attempted to use the JAWS screen-reader program — a screen reading software program designed to allow visually impaired individuals to access websites. (Id. at ¶¶ 27, 33). While visiting the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that prevented the JAWS screen-reader from working, and inhibited Plaintiff from understanding and engaging with the Website's content. (Id. at ¶ 37). Generally, the Website contained "pop-up boxes" in conjunction with its drop-down menus that enabled its users to navigate the Website. (Id. at ¶ 11). These "pop-up boxes" were not adequately labeled, however, and were thus incompatible with the JAWS screen-reader, inhibiting Plaintiff from navigating to the sections of the site named "About," "Admissions," "Academics," and "Research." (Id.). Plaintiff was also unable to utilize the Website's net price calculator, because it was incompatible with the JAWS screen-reader program: Plaintiff was unable to accept the conditions attendant to the calculator and was unable to input his information in the calculator. (Id.). Because of these barriers, Plaintiff was unable to learninformation about Defendant's school, which information he considered necessary for him to make an informed decision regarding whether he would be interested in visiting, and potentially applying to, the school. (Id. at ¶¶ 43, 50; Camacho Decl. ¶¶ 10-13).
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 15, 2018. (Dkt. #1). On March 5, 2019, Defendant applied for leave to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (Dkt. #10). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on March 15, 2019. (Dkt. #13). Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on March 21, 2019. (Dkt. #14). Thereafter, on April 26, 2019, Defendant applied for leave to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. #15). The Court held a pre-motion conference concerning Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss on May 7, 2019, in which it granted Plaintiff leave to further amend his complaint. (Dkt. #19 (transcript of proceedings)). Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on May 23, 2019. (Dkt. #21). Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on June 24, 2019. (Dkt. #28). Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on June 28, 2019. (Dkt. #29). This motion became fully briefed when Defendant filed its reply brief on August 23, 2019. (Dkt. #32).
The Court begins by discussing Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). As set forth in the remainder of this section, the Court concludes that it does have personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
"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). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need only provide "legally sufficient allegations of jurisdiction." Id. A plaintiff makes such a showing through "an averment of facts that, if credited by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant." Id. at 567 (quoting Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations "are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and doubts are resolved in the plaintiff's favor[.]" Elsevier, Inc. v. Grossman, 77 F. Supp. 3d 331, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting A.I. Trade Fin., Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 79-80 (2d Cir. 1993)). Where a court does not hold an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional question, it may, nevertheless, consider matters outside the pleadings. Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2013).
To determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper, a court conducts a two-part inquiry: First, a court looks at whether there is a basis for personal jurisdiction under the laws of the forum state. Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir. 2013). Here, the relevant inquiry centers on New York's long-arm statute, which provides, in relevant part, that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction "over any non-domiciliary ... who in person or through an agent ... transacts any business within the state," so long as the cause of action "aris[es] from" that transaction. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1). Accordingly, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary if two conditions are met: "first, the non-domiciliary must transact business within the state; second, the claims against the non-domiciliary must arise out of that business activity." Aquiline Capital Partners LLC v. FinArch LLC, 861 F. Supp. 2d 378, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Second, a court must examine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. Licci, 732 F.3d at 168. "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." Id. at 169 (internal quotation marks omitted). Put differently, due process is not violated when a defendant is "haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the state[.]" Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 286 (2014). In deciding whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable, a court considers "[i] theburden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant; [ii] the interests of the forum state in adjudicating the case; [iii] the...
To continue reading
Request your trial