Opinion ID: 2798929
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gomez Files Suit

Text: On October 25, 2013, Gomez filed a class action in the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the Subject ATM did not comply with ADA standards. Rather than giving specific information about the alleged malfunction, however, Gomez reported only that the voice guidance system failed sometime after the 2010 Standards came into effect. 2 Gomez added that he planned to revisit the Subject ATM in his effort to find ADA-compliant machines. For relief, Gomez requested a permanent injunction requiring defendant to bring its ATMs into compliance, along with costs and attorney’s fees. Dade moved to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction on February 13, 2014. Defendant argued that Gomez lacked standing because he failed to allege a constitutional injury-in-fact. In support, Dade produced declarations from Gaskins, Miles, and others showing that the Subject ATM complied with ADA standards both before and after plaintiff’s test. Gomez responded with his own declaration, which testified that he visited the Subject ATM just after the motion to dismiss on February 27, 2014. This time, the machine worked and Gomez was able to “complete a balance inquiry transaction using voice guidance.” Gomez further declared that he tested a second 2 Though the Final Results became effective in March 2011, the communications standards relevant to this case went into effect on March 15, 2012. See Final Rule at 56,237, 56,256. 7 Case: 14-11539 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 8 of 15 ATM about sixteen miles away from his home on the same day. He reported that this ATM’s voice guidance system began when prompted, but “stopped during the course of the transaction.” The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint on March 24, 2014. After weighing the parties’ evidence, the court concluded that Gomez lacked constitutional standing to bring a claim. In the court’s view, Gomez was not under imminent threat of injury. Dade’s declarations showed that the Subject ATM complied with ADA standards before and after Gomez’s July 2013 visit, and hence it was unlikely Gomez would suffer another malfunction at the Subject ATM in the future. The court also refused to credit plaintiff’s assertion that other ATMs were out of compliance, because Gomez offered nothing to corroborate the findings of his unnamed investigator. Finally, the court accorded no weight to the allegation that a second ATM broke down after the suit began. Because “standing is determined as of the time at which the plaintiff’s complaint is filed,” Gomez could not create standing by alleging a malfunction four months after the case began. The court dismissed plaintiff’s case without prejudice, but Gomez did not take the opportunity to amend and refile his complaint. Instead, he appealed. 8 Case: 14-11539 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 9 of 15