Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 14, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-04878
StatusUnknown

This text of Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC (Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all : others similarly situated, : : Plaintiff, : : -v- : 24 Civ. 4878 (JPC) : BUFFALO JACKSON TRADING CO., LLC, : OPINION AND ORDER : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Felipe Fernandez, who is legally blind, filed this civil action against Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC (“Buffalo Jackson”) seeking relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and other provisions of the New York State Civil Rights Law. Dkt. 1. Through a First Amended Complaint filed on September 9, 2024, Fernandez alleges that he was unable to purchase a particular leather jacket (a “Thompson leather moto jacket”) from Buffalo Jackson on April 15, 2024, because the company’s e-commerce website is inaccessible to the blind. Dkt. 9 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 17-31. Fernandez says that he wanted to purchase this jacket because he desired a leather jacket that “would offer both comfort and a classic aesthetic” and “would suit any look.” Id. ¶ 22. And given the purported high quality of Buffalo Jackson’s products, Fernandez promises that if this litigation is resolved in his favor and Buffalo Jackson’s website is rendered ADA-compliant, he will return to purchase the jacket. Id. ¶¶ 23, 31. Fernandez enumerates various alleged accessibility barriers on Buffalo Jackson’s website, id. ¶¶ 47-52, which “effectively denied [Fernandez] the ability to use and enjoy [Buffalo Jackson]’s website the same way sighted individuals do,” id. ¶ 53. Buffalo Jackson moves to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the ground that Fernandez lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution or, in the alternative, moves to take jurisdictional discovery and requests that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing. Dkts. 14, 15 (“Motion”).1 Article III standing, Buffalo Jackson correctly points out, requires the plaintiff to “show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339 (2016) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)); see Motion at 6-7. And in the ADA context, the Second Circuit has held that Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement means that the plaintiff must demonstrate three things: (1) a past injury under the ADA; (2) that it is reasonable to infer that the

defendant’s discriminatory treatment would continue; and (3) that it is reasonable to infer that the plaintiff intends to return to the relevant place of public accommodation. Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68, 74 (2d Cir. 2022). Buffalo Jackson contends that Fernandez has failed to plausibly allege at least the first and third of these requirements. Motion at 9-21. Even assuming that Fernandez’s allegations, taken as true at this stage, sufficiently plead standing, that is not the end of the story. Article III standing is not merely a pleading hurdle, but a core constitutional guardrail meant to “ensure[] that federal courts decide only the rights of individuals, and that federal courts exercise their proper function in a limited and separated government.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The requirement of Article III standing, in other words, limits federal

1 Buffalo Jackson also moves to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that its website is not a “place of public accommodation” for purposes of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Motion at 4, 25; Dkt. 21 (reply brief) at 9-10. But before addressing the merits of Fernandez’s ADA claim, the Court first must determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear this case. See United States v. Bond, 762 F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Subject matter jurisdiction is a ‘threshold question that must be resolved . . . before proceeding to the merits.’” (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1998))). The Court will address Buffalo Jackson’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6), if appropriate, after resolving the question of Fernandez’s Article III standing. jurisdiction to “the power to redress harms that defendants cause plaintiffs,” as opposed to “a freewheeling power to hold defendants accountable for legal infractions.” Casillas v. Madison Ave. Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329, 332 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J.) (emphasis added); see TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 423-24 (“Federal courts do not exercise general legal oversight of . . . private entities.”). Thus, Article III does not permit plaintiffs “to roam the country in search of . . . wrongdoing and to reveal their discoveries in federal court” absent a genuine, personal stake in the outcome of the case. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 487 (1982). For these reasons, a district court “has considerable latitude in devising the procedures it

will follow to ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction” and retains “wide latitude to determine the scope of discovery” of facts relevant to jurisdictional issues. Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436, 446 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks). In the ADA context in particular, courts in this Circuit have allowed defendants to take jurisdictional discovery pertaining to whether a plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact in connection with his alleged inability to access a place of public accommodation or about whether the plaintiff’s “‘professed intent to return’ to [the place of public accommodation] is ‘genuine’”—notwithstanding the facial sufficiency of the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations. Dawkins v. Brandy Libr. Lounge, LLC, No. 23 Civ. 207 (HG), 2023 WL 8455896, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2023) (quoting Harty v. Simon Prop. Grp., L.P., 428 F. App’x 69, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order)); see, e.g., Maddy v. Life Time, Inc., No. 22 Civ.

5007 (LJL), 2023 WL 4364488, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2023); Tavarez v. Moo Organic Chocolates, LLC, 641 F. Supp. 3d 76, 82-83 & nn.6-7 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In other words, when the plaintiff’s allegations and the surrounding circumstances reveal substantial reasons to question the plaintiff’s standing, jurisdictional discovery is appropriate to ensure that the relevant website has “actual, specific relevance to that particular plaintiff beyond the plaintiff’s desire to seek out and remedy ADA violations.” Winegard v. Golftec Intell. Prop. LLC, 674 F. Supp. 3d 21, 26 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Court finds a number of reasons to question the sincerity of Fernandez’s jurisdictional allegations and will therefore allow Buffalo Jackson to take jurisdictional discovery and to challenge Fernandez’s standing at an evidentiary hearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Harty v. Simon Property Group, L.P.
428 F. App'x 69 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
523 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Paula Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc
926 F.3d 329 (Seventh Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Bond
762 F.3d 255 (Second Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-buffalo-jackson-trading-co-llc-nysd-2025.