Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC
1:24-cv-04878
S.D.N.Y.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Felipe Fernandez, who is legally blind, sued Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC under Title III of the ADA and related New York laws, alleging he could not buy a leather jacket because their website was inaccessible.
- Plaintiff has filed dozens of similar ADA lawsuits over the prior year, each claiming unsuccessful attempts to buy specific products from different online retailers.
- Buffalo Jackson moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing Fernandez did not suffer a concrete injury and lacked genuine intent to return to the site.
- The court noted a pattern of near-identical, template-driven complaints by Fernandez and other plaintiffs with the same legal counsel, raising doubts about the sincerity of Fernandez's claims.
- Judge Cronan permitted Buffalo Jackson to take jurisdictional discovery and set an evidentiary hearing to test the veracity of Fernandez’s ADA standing allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing – Injury-in-Fact | Fernandez suffered injury due to website inaccessibility | Fernandez did not suffer a plausible injury | Discovery and hearing ordered to test veracity of injury |
| Article III Standing – Intent to Return | Fernandez intends to buy the jacket if site is accessible | His intent to return is not genuine given the litigation pattern | Discovery and hearing ordered to test genuineness of intent |
| Sufficiency of Pleading for Standing | Detailed allegation of purchase attempt and desire to return | Allegations are boilerplate and contradicted by volume/pattern | Court finds substantial reason to question sincerity; discovery allowed |
| Status of Motion to Dismiss on Merits (ADA) | Website is a place of public accommodation under the ADA | Website is not covered by ADA as such | Court defers merits ruling until jurisdiction is established |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (describes injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (sets out standing requirements for federal court)
- Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (discusses limits on federal courts' power under Article III)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (explains federal courts' role is to redress actual harms to plaintiffs)