Erasmus v. Chien, D.D.S., 1:21-cv-01256-JLT-SAB

Plaintiff Megan Erasmus is deaf and uses closed captioning; she visited fresnooralsurgery.com in July 2021 and alleges videos lacked captions, impairing her ability to understand content and deterring her from using the site.
Erasmus sued under Title III of the ADA and California's Unruh Act seeking injunctive relief; defendants are entities doing business as Fresno Oral Maxillofacial Surgery & Dental Implant Center.
The district court previously dismissed Erasmus's original complaint for lack of Article III standing and granted leave to amend; Erasmus filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC).
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), submitting declarations (a factual attack) and arguing Erasmus lacks standing because she failed to plead a nexus between the website and the physical clinic; they also contend the ADA claim is moot because captions were later added.
Counsel for Erasmus later indicated the subject video now contains closed captions; the court considered both the FAC and defendants’ extrinsic evidence.
The court dismissed the FAC for lack of standing (Title III), declined to reach mootness, dismissed the Unruh claim without prejudice, and denied further leave to amend as futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / Nexus between website and physical place	Erasmus alleged the website connects customers to the clinic and was used to learn about services; she was deterred from using the site and would return if accessible	Website is not a place of public accommodation and FAC fails to allege a sufficient nexus showing the site impeded access to goods/services at the physical clinic	Dismissed for lack of standing: FAC fails to plead facts establishing the required nexus between website and physical location
Mootness (remedy added)	Even if captions were later added, plaintiff can seek injunctive relief and alleged deterrence supports ongoing injury	Defendants submitted evidence captions were added, arguing ADA claim is moot	Court declined to resolve mootness because it dismissed for lack of standing first
Unruh Act (state-law claim)	Unruh claim follows from ADA violation	Defendants argued dismissal of federal claim requires dismissal of state claim	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed Unruh claim without prejudice
Leave to Amend	Erasmus was previously granted leave and submitted FAC	Defendants argued deficiencies persist and amendment would be futile	Court found further amendment futile and denied leave to amend

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (website/app can give rise to Title III claim where nexus to physical restaurants is shown)
Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (elements of a Title III ADA claim)
Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (places of public accommodation are actual, physical places)
Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (requirements to show likelihood of future injury for injunctive relief under ADA)
Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (deterrence theory supports standing where plaintiff was deterred from returning)
Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (distinguishing facial and factual attacks under Rule 12(b)(1))