327 F. Supp. 3d 539
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Plaintiff Kayla Reed is blind/visually impaired and uses screen‑reader software to access websites and mobile apps; she alleges 1‑800 Flowers' digital platforms had barriers that prevented independent access.
- Defendant 1‑800 Flowers operates a national e‑commerce website and mobile application through which it offers goods and services to the public.
- Reed alleges Title III ADA and California Unruh Act violations based on inaccessible web/mobile interfaces and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (including retention of an agreed‑upon accessibility consultant, remediation, training, testing, and an accessibility policy), attorneys' fees, and damages.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing failure to state a claim and raising threshold defenses including the first‑filed rule, primary jurisdiction, and due process concerns about lack of DOJ website regulations.
- The court accepted Reed's factual allegations as true for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes and denied the motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First‑filed rule | Reed's action should proceed; no active competing suit | Gathers in D. Mass. is first‑filed and should take priority | Dismissal declined — Gathers had been dismissed with prejudice, so no pending conflict |
| Primary jurisdiction | Federal courts can decide ADA website claims now | DOJ expertise and pending/possible rulemaking warrant deferral to agency | Declined — legal statutory issues are within judicial competence; DOJ has not issued binding regulations and ANPRM is inactive |
| Due process / notice | ADA's nondiscrimination mandate provides adequate notice; remedies are premature | Lack of specific DOJ website standards makes injunctive relief vague and retroactive | Rejected — statutory duty is sufficient notice; remedy specifics are for a later stage |
| Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency | Complaint alleges inaccessible digital platforms and requested equitable relief | Alleged facts allegedly insufficient to state a plausible claim | Denied — pleadings plausibly state Title III/Unruh claims when taken as true |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Ellis v. Tribune TV Co., 443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (factors for primary jurisdiction analysis)
- Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 846 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1988) (primary jurisdiction narrowly applied)
- United States v. AMC, 549 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2008) (due process concerns where retroactive regulatory interpretation imposed)
- Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 381 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (courts competent to adjudicate Title III website accessibility claims)