Luis Licea – Plaintiff Filing ADA Website Lawsuits
Luis Licea, a California ADA Plaintiff, has filed thousands of ADA Website lawsuits against businesses in California. He is represented by attorney Scott J. Ferrell of Pacific Trail Attorneys, who files ADA Website lawsuits. In lawsuits we have seen, ADA Website Plaintiff Luis Licea claims to be blind and requires screen-reading software to access website content and navigate the internet. He claims his disability prevents him from accessing websites that are not designed to be compatible with such as accessibility technology. He claims to encounter multiple barriers that prevented him from effectively accessing the information and services on sites, thus excluding him from equal access to the goods and services offered by certain businesses.
Some of the most recent lawsuits filed are:
LUIS LICEA V. MB PALMILLA INC., Case # 24STCV19433, Date Filed: 08/02/24
LUIS LICEA V. PROPHET WORLD BEAT PRODUCTIONS Case # 24STCV19312, Date Filed 08/02/2024
Recent News
ADA Website Plaintiff Luis Licea recently filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Case Name: LUIS LICEA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LUNASIA GROUP, a California entity, d/b/a LUNASIADIMSUM.COM, Defendant.
Case Number: 24STCV19311
Date Filed: 08/02/2024
Sample Lawsuit Below
ADA Website Plaintiff Luis Licea, represented by attorney Scott J. Ferrell of Pacific Trail Attorneys alleges that the defendant’s website is not accessible to blind or visually impaired individuals because it doesn’t follow basic accessibility standards, preventing the plaintiff from using the website and accessing the defendant’s services. As a result, the plaintiff cannot enjoy the same benefits as others when trying to access the website or the physical location. Please see the sample lawsuit below.
FACTS
- The Internet has become a significant source of information, a portal and tool for
conducting business, and a means for doing everyday activities such as shopping, banking, etc. for
both the sighted and blind, and/or visually-impaired persons.
- Blind individuals may access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen reading software that vocalizes visual information on a computer screen. Screen access software
provides the only method by which a blind person may independently access the internet. Unless
websites are designed to be read by screen reading software, blind persons are unable to fully access
websites and the information, products and services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
contained thereon.
- The international website standards organization, W3C, has published version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG 2.1”). WCAG 2.1 are well-established, industry
standard guidelines for ensuring websites are accessible to blind and visually-impaired people. These
guidelines are successfully followed by numerous large business entities to ensure their websites are
accessible. These guidelines recommend several basic components for making websites accessible
including, but not limited to, adding invisible alternative text to graphics, ensuring that all functions
can be performed using a keyboard and not just a mouse; ensuring that image maps are accessible, and
adding headings so that blind people can easily navigate websites. Without these very basic
components, a website will be inaccessible to a blind or visually-impaired person using a screen
reader.
- Due to Defendant’s intentional refusal to remove access barriers on the Website,
Plaintiff has been denied equal enjoyment of and access to Defendant’s brick and mortar location and
the services, advantages, privileges, and accommodations offered to the public.
- The Website’s barriers are pervasive. In response to an appropriate discovery request,
Plaintiff will provide Defendant with an exhaustive list of such barriers and an explanation of how
those barriers prevented Plaintiff from accessing Defendant’s goods and services.
- Despite attempts to access the Website in recent months, the numerous access barriers
contained on the Website have denied Plaintiff’s full and equal access, and have deterred Plaintiff on a
regular basis from accessing the Website as well as Defendant’s brick and mortar location. Plaintiff
continues to attempt to utilize the Website and plans to continue to attempt to utilize the Website.
Previous ADA Website Lawsuit Filed:
Case Name: Luis Licea, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Vornado Realty, a Maryland entity d/b/a VNO.com, Defendant.
Cane Number: 23STCV24994
Date Filed: 10/12/2023
ADA Website Plaintiff Attorney: Pacific Trail Attorneys | Scott J. Ferrell
Court: Superior Court of The State of California for the County of Los Angeles