Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
January 15, 2021, Decided; January 15, 2021, Filed
Case No. 20-cv-06015-DMR
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 20
Plaintiff Chris Langer filed this action on August 26, 2020, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, against Defendant Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California ("Pep Boys"). [Docket No. 5.] Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 12, 2020. [Docket No. 17 ("FAC").] Pep Boys moves to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). [Docket No. 20 ("Mot."), 22 ("Reply").] Langer opposes. [Docket No. 21 ("Opp.").] This matter is suitable for determination without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
The following facts are alleged in the complaint and taken from the evidence submitted in support of this motion. Langer suffers substantial and [*2] permanent partial hearing loss. FAC ¶¶ 1, 10. He uses a variety of assistive devices, including hearing aids and headphones, but he still does not receive "complete aural communication." Id. ¶ 1. Thus, he relies on subtitles and closed captioning while watching videos. Id. ¶¶ 1, 11.
Pep Boys is an "automotive aftermarket retail and services chain." [Docket No. 20-1, Declaration of Gregory J. Russ ("Russ Decl.") ¶ 5.] It sells tires and auto parts, repairs vehicles, and provides expert advice. Id. Pep Boys own and operate the Pep Boys website, which is available at https://www.pepboys.com. FAC ¶ 4. It also operates physical locations in California. Id. ¶ 12.
Pep Boys offers videos on its website for various purposes, such as providing information and inducing customers to purchase its products. FAC ¶ 13. Langer alleges that he was a prospective customer seeking to access Pep Boy's goods and services. Id. ¶ 14. He visited Pep Boys' website in August 2020 to "confirm the business was open and look for information about the company and its products." Id. ¶ 15. When he tried to view video content on the Website, he found that the videos did not have subtitles, which made him unable to fully [*3] understand the contents of the videos. Id. ¶ 16. One such video was titled "Need help making an appointment." Id. ¶ 17. Langer alleges that he was deterred from further use of the website due to the lack of auxiliary aids and that he was therefore denied the full use and enjoyment of Pep Boys facilities, goods, and services. Id. ¶¶ 18, 19.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8680 *; 2021 WL 148237
CHRIS LANGER, Plaintiff, v. THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.
Subsequent History: Motion denied by, Sanctions allowed by Langer v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227264 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2021)
website, video, WCAG, moot, allegations, physical location, captioning, violations, barriers, motion to dismiss, cases, compliance, guidelines, compliant, deterred, visited, argues, Web, place of public accommodation, subject matter jurisdiction, declaration, disability, products, facial, locate, nexus