1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDRES GOMEZ, Case No. 21-cv-09554-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ADA CLAIM 9 v. WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND DISMISSING UNRUH ACT CLAIM 10 LESTI REAL ESTATE, INC., WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 Defendant.

12 13 On April 26, 2022, the Court directed plaintiff to file a sworn declaration asserting the factual 14 basis for his standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, namely, (1) whether he intends to 15 visit defendant’s physical location, assuming one exists, or (2) whether he was deterred from 16 accessing the services offered by defendant’s (assumed) physical location, i.e., the sale of real estate. 17 Dkt. No. 23. As explained in the Court’s order, Ninth Circuit law requires standing under either of 18 those two grounds to bring an ADA claim based on a website. Id. at 1-2. 19 Plaintiff filed a sworn declaration on May 6, 2022. Dkt. No. 25. The submitted declaration 20 is identical to the declaration plaintiff filed in Gomez v. Skip Keyser Realty, Inc., 21-cv-07409-SI, 21 an analogous case in which this Court directed plaintiff to assert his factual basis for ADA standing. 22 The declaration in Skip Keyser was insufficient to confer this Court with jurisdiction in that case; so 23 too is the declaration insufficient for standing in the present matter. 24 Here, plaintiff asserts that “the information” about real estate listings on the Lesti Real Estate 25 Inc. website is itself the service, rather than the website facilitating access to the services offered by 26 Lesti’s physical location. Plaintiff disclaimed any intention to visit Lesti’s physical office, and he 27 does not wish to use Lesti’s website to facilitate access to a Lesti service or good beyond the website 1 inaccessible website impeded access to custom-order pizza delivery.

(9th Cir. 2 |} 2019). Nor is plaintiffs claim analogous to the example presented in the DOJ’s recent guidance on 3 website accessibility—that an inaccessible website prevented access to a registration form for a 4 || veterans’ service organization event. See Department of Justice, Guidance on Web Accessibility 5 and the ADA, https://beta.ada.gov/web-guidance (Mar. 18, 2022). Plaintiff does not cite any 6 || authority within the Ninth Circuit holding that a plaintiff may bring a Title HI ADA claim to 7 || challenge the inaccessibility of a website where the inability to access information on the website 8 || was the sole basis of the ADA claim — where the website information was the “service” — and the 9 || website’s inaccessibility did not separately impede access to the goods or services of the public 10 accommodation. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that plaintiff has not stated a claim 11 || under the ADA and DISMISSES that cause of action without leave to amend. The Court declines 12 || supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. See

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: May 16, 2022 Site WU tee 16 SUSAN ILLSTON 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28