Shahbaz Law Group APC- Jacob Shahbaz – ADA Website Lawsuits
As of recently, Jacob Shahbaz is now targeting websites, plaintiffs: Garnik Blkhoyan, Nazik Blkhoyan, Kevin Rosales, John Paul Hutchins, Virdiana Quevedo, Juliana Garcia, Estela Ramos and Brenda Ordaz.
Please call us if you have a lawsuit by any of these plaintiffs.
Please see example lawsuit below:
Jacob A. Shahbaz, Esq., SBN 204669
SHAHBAZ LAW GROUP, APC
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 860
Encino, CA 91436
Tel. (818) 510-0091
Fax. (818) 305-6222
Attorney for Plaintiff, JULIANNA GARCIA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
JULIANNA GARCIA, Case No.:
Plaintiff, vs. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
[LIMITED JURISDICTION ABOVE $10,000 BELOW $25,000)
Entity, business form unknown, and
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 51, 52, 54 and 54.1
1. Plaintiff is ignorant of the defendants sued as Does 1-25. Once the names are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend the complaint to reflect those names.
2. At all times mentioned herein Defendant Business Entity, business form unknown, and DOES 1-25, is doing business on the website, known as (website) (“WEBSITE”). The Defendant’s physical address is located (Plaintiff’s Address).
3. At all times mentioned herein JULIANNA GARCIA has been, disabled. “Disability” means any mental or physical disability as defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the Government Code. Civil Code Section 51(e)(l).
4. Plaintiff has visited Defendant’s public accommodation WEBSITE and has been denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (b}.)
5. Through their WEBSITES, Defendants offer vital data such as: research tools, information, data to compare accommodations, information to allow travel, purchasing products, offering of services, products for online sale and home delivery to the public.
6. The WEBSITE’s barriers have previously denied Plaintiff full and equal access to all of the services Defendant’s WEBSITE offers, and now deter Plaintiff from attempting to use Defendant’s WEBSITE in the future.
7. Despite their disabilities, Plaintiff is able and ready to visit Defendant’s WEBSITE once it is made compliant. Plaintiff’s disabilities, and the challenges Plaintiff face in physically traveling to and shopping in traditional brick-and-mortar retailers as a result of them, make it particularly likely that Plaintiff will return to Defendant’s WEBSITE in the future to purchase Defendant’s goods from the comfort of their homes.
8. As a result of having visited Defendant’s WEBSITE in the past, and of investigations performed on Plaintiff’s behalf, Plaintiff is aware that Defendant’s WEBSITE provides insufficient access to disabled persons. The following subparagraphs detail some of the defects with the WEBSITE:
a. A proper text equivalent for every non-text element is not provided. Does not provide appropriate alternative text that presents the content of the image and/or the function of the link. All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose;
b. Information about the meaning and structure of content is not conveyed by more than the visual presentation of content;
c. All functionality of the content of the website is not operable through a keyboard interface requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes. The website cannot be navigated with a keyboard and/or the navigation of the website with the keyboard is not consistent across the website. All functionality is not available from a keyboard.
i. If keyboard focus can be moved to a component of the page using a keyboard interface, then focus cannot be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface. On pages where a user can move to a part of a page via the keyboard, the user is unable to move away from that part of the page using only the keyboard.
ii. If keyboard focus can be moved to a component of the page using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, the user is advised of the method for moving focus away.
d. Navigation of the website is not consistent across the website. A mechanism is r11:> always available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages. Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web pages within a set of Web pages does not occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated;
e. Plaintiff has performed a detailed investigation and Plaintiff alleges under information and belief that the WEBSITE lacks “titles that describe their topic or purpose.” All form submission error messages identify any empty required fields. Upon receiving discovery, this paragraph will be amended. The purpose of each link cannot be determined from the link text alone or from the link text and its programmatically determined link context;
f. Labels or instructions are not always provided when content requires user input;
g. Link text (and alternate text for images, when used as links) that is discernible, unique, and focusable improves the navigation experience for screen reader users
h. The assistive technologies does not read the WEBSITE properly.
i. Make text content readable and understandable. When text requires reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level after removal of proper names and titles, supplemental content, or a version that does not require reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level, is available. A mechanism is available for identifying specific pronunciation of words where meaning of the words, in context, is ambiguous without knowing the pronunciation.
J. Make WEBSITE pages appear and operate in predictable ways.
9. Defendant’s WEBSITE fails to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Version 2.0 (“WCAG 2.0 AA”), Unruh Act and ADA.
10. If the WEBSITE were accessible, i.e. if Defendant removed these barriers, Plaintiff could independently have equal access to the entire WEBSITE.
11. Plaintiff has performed a detailed investigation and Plaintiff alleges under information and belief that although it appears that the Defendant does not have centralized policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its WEBSITE, it appears from an almost exhaustive review that Defendant has never had a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated to make its WEBSITE fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with disabilities. As a result, the complained of access barriers are permanent in nature and likely to persist. Upon receipt of discovery, Plaintiff shall amend the complaint to reflect such information as needed.
12. The law requires that Defendant’s WEBSITE be accessible to Plaintiff and others with disabilities. Removal of the barriers identified above is readily achievable and may be carried out without much difficulty or expense.
13. Removal of these barriers would make Defendant’s WEBSITE accessible to Plaintiff allowing him to independently shop for and perform research via Defendant’s WEBSITE.
14. Inaccessible WEBSITE violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.) which mandates “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments or every kind whatsoever ” (Ci\ . Code-. ~ 51. suhd. (b).)
15. Under subdivision (f). Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides: “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
16. As a reference, Defendant’s WEBSITE is a public accommodation within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).
17. Unlawful discrimination also includes, among other things: a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations; and a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage u accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.
18. Through Civ. Code, § 51 , subd. (f), Title III of ADA requires that “(a] public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(l).
19. Plaintiffs have not been provided services that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and/or have been provided services that are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled persons. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.
20. Plaintiffs’ claims are warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.
21. The Unruh Civil Rights Act also provides that a “violation of … the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . shall also constitute a violation of this section.” Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f). “On examining the language, statutory context, and history of section 51, subdivision (f), we conclude … [t]he Legislature’s intent in adding subdivision (f) was to provide disabled Californians injured by violations of the ADA with the remedies provided by section 52. A plaintiff who establishes a violation of the ADA, therefore, need not prove intentional discrimination in order to obtain damages under section 52.” Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 661, 665.
22. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 52(a) and the remedies, procedures and rights set forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.
23. The instant complaint is a sole claim under Unruh as the event happened in the state of California and the federal laws are for reference purposes.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM, AS FOLLOWS:
1. A minimum of $4,500.00 in statutory damages;
2. For attorney’s fees and costs;
3. For such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, By:
By: Jacob A. Shahbaz
I, JULIANNA GARCIA state and declare that I am the Plaintiff herein, and that I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true of my knowledge, and as to these matters I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct on _______ at , California.