DUNBAR v. EVINE LIVE, INC
2:17-cv-01527
W.D. Pa.Jan 11, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (including Tommy Brown) are visually impaired Pennsylvania residents who allege they could not access defendants’ websites using screen‑reader software.
- Brown lives in Murrysville/Allegheny County, within the Western District of Pennsylvania, and attempted access to the sites from his home.
- Defendants Snow Time, Inc. and Peak Resorts, Inc. operate ski resorts and websites; both concede Pennsylvania ties but maintain principal operations or resort locations in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Middle District of Pennsylvania under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
- Plaintiffs opposed, relying on allegations that a substantial part of the events (the failed website access) occurred in the Western District and that defendants’ websites target residents of the district (e.g., directions from Pittsburgh, season passes).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (substantial part of events occurred in district) | Brown: attempted access from home in Western District; the website barriers occurred there | Defendants: principal offices/resorts are in Middle District; websites operated outside Western District so venue is improper | Venue is proper in the Western District because the alleged access attempts and barriers occurred there and constitute a substantial part of the events |
| Burden of proof on a Rule 12(b)(3) venue challenge | Brown: plaintiff’s pleadings and affidavits should be credited absent successful evidentiary challenge | Defendants: must show venue is improper | Court: challenger bears burden; plaintiff entitled to have complaint allegations accepted absent evidentiary defeat; facts viewed in plaintiff’s favor |
| Weight to give plaintiff’s choice of forum | Brown: strong presumption in favor of plaintiff’s chosen forum | Defendants: forum should be disturbed if improper | Court: recognizes strong presumption for plaintiff’s choice and will not lightly disturb it; presumption supports venue in Western District |
| Whether website contacts can support venue in plaintiff’s district | Brown: websites intentionally target district residents (directions from Pittsburgh, season passes) | Defendants: website operation elsewhere undermines venue in Western District | Court: finds website content aimed at district residents supports conclusion that the Western District is a proper venue |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 695 F.2d 716 (3d Cir.) (party challenging venue bears burden)
- Heft v. AAI Corp., 355 F. Supp. 2d 757 (M.D. Pa. 2005) (pleading allegations credited on venue motion absent evidentiary challenge)
- Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361 (3d Cir.) (standard for accepting allegations on venue motions)
- Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141 (3d Cir.) (plaintiff entitled to rely on complaint absent successful evidentiary challenge)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S.) (strong presumption favoring plaintiff’s choice of forum)
- Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22 (3d Cir.) (plaintiff’s forum choice is a paramount consideration)