Website Lawsuits & Claims filed by Andres Gomez
We get Andres Gomez ADA website cases and claims dismissed without payment. Our firm has resolved and consulted on over 4,000 ADA cases, with over half now being website cases and claims. We have taken an aggressive posture in cases filed by Andres Gomez. Following our exhaustive investigation, we are now getting cases filed by ADA Plaintiff Andres Gomez dismissed without any payment to Gomez or his attorneys. He is, or has been represented by several attorneys such as the Potter Handy law firm, Mark Potter, Amanda Seabock at their law firm, Morse Mehrban who files in LA Superior Court, and Tanya Moore who had filed his cases files in the Northern Federal District of California. Below are examples of lawsuits filed by each different attorney.
Lawsuit filed by Center for Disability Access (Amanda Seabock, Dennis Price, Mark Potter)
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq., SBN 111282 Russell Handy, Esq., SBN 195058 Amanda Seabock, Esq., SBN 289900
Zachary Best, Esq., SBN 166035
Mail: 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
(858) 375-7385; (888) 422-5191 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Andres Gomez, Case No.
Plaintiff, Complaint for Damages and
v. Injunctive Relief for Violations
XXXXXXXXXX of: American’s With Disabilities
Defendant. Act; Unruh Civil Rights Act
NOT RELATING TO A
BARRIER AS DEFINED IN CAL.
CIV. CODE § 55.3
Plaintiff Andres Gomez (“Plaintiff”) complains of XXXXXXXXXX; (“Defendant”), and alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired individual and a member of a protected class of persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Talkback or similar software to navigate websites and applications on electronic devices. Plaintiff is legally blind1 and cannot use an electronic device without assistance of screen-reader software (“SRS”).
2. Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, owned or operated Cline Cellars located in County, California, in March 2021 and August 2021.
3. Defendant XXXXXXX owns or operates XXXXXXXX located in County, California, currently.
4. Defendant XXXXXXX owned or operated XXXXXXX website, with a root domain of: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and all related domains, sub-domains and/or content contained within it, (“Website”) in March 2021 and August 2021.
5. Defendant XXXXXXX owns or operates XXXXXXX website currently.
6. Plaintiff does not know the true names of Defendants, their business capacities, their ownership connection to the property and business, or their relative responsibilities in causing the access violations herein complained of, and alleges a joint venture and common enterprise by all such Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the Defendants herein, is responsible in some capacity for the events herein alleged or is a necessary party for obtaining appropriate relief. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend when the true names, capacities, connections, and responsibilities of the Defendants are ascertained.
JURISDICTION & VENUE:
1 Plaintiff uses the terms “visually-impaired” or “blind” interchangeably to refer to individuals, including himself, who meet the legal definition of blindness. (visual acuity of 20/200 or worse.) Some individuals who meet these criteria have no vision, others have limited vision.
7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a)(3) & (a)(4) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”)
8. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s non-federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Plaintiff’s Unruh claims are formed from the same case and/or controversy and are related to Plaintiff’s ADA claims. A violation of the ADA is a violation of Unruh. (Cal. Code §51(f)).
9. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District due to its business contacts with the District, and a substantial portion of the complained of conduct occurred in this District.
10. Plaintiff is a legally blind person and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Plaintiff is proficient with and uses SRS to access the internet and read internet content on computers and mobile devices.
11. Plaintiff cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen reader software. (“SRS”).
12. XXXXXXX operates privileges, goods or services out of a physical location in California. These services are open to the public, places of public accommodation, and business establishments.
13. The Website is a nexus between XXXXXXX customers and the terrestrial based privileges, goods or services offered by XXXXXXX.
14. XXXXXXX offers websites and digital booking as some of the facilities, privileges, and advantages offered by Defendants to patrons of the XXXXXXX in connection with their patronage at the XXXXXXX.
15. Among the services offered include: details about the XXX and the XXXXXXX itself, location and contact information; XXXXXXX, policies; information about wine, deals and promotions without any ambiguity as to the amenities that would be available to the patron.
16. Plaintiff was a prospective customer who wished to access Defendant’s goods and services of the XXXXXXX.
17. Plaintiff visited the Website in March 2021 and August 2021 in search of a Products/places to potentially visit this location to purchase XXXX or do some XXXX or potentially make my own XXXX since we were in the California area and potentially wanted to go to Northern California for this experience since I have family who lives in Northern California.
18. When Plaintiff attempted to navigate the Website, Plaintiff encountered numerous accessibility design faults that prevented him from navigating the site successfully using SRS. Investigation into his experience revealed barriers, including, but not limited to:
a. Images on the website lack a text equivalent readable by
b. The visualization of the webpage contains impermissibly
low contrast enabling differentiation of background and
19. These inaccessible elements rendered the ostensibly “accessible” elements inaccessible as a result of difficulty and confusion navigating the numerous inaccessible elements.
20. Currently, the defendants either fail to provide an accessible website or Defendants have failed to maintain in working and useable conditions those website features required to provide ready access to persons with disabilities.
21. Despite multiple attempts to access the Website using Plaintiff’s computer and mobile device, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered by Defendants as a result of the accessibility barriers on the Website.
22. Plaintiff personally encountered accessibility barriers and has actual knowledge of them.
23. By failing to provide an accessible website, the defendants denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the facilities privileges or advantages offered to their customers.
24. Plaintiff has been deterred from returning to the Website as a result of these prior experiences.
25. The failure to provide accessible facilities created difficulty and discomfort for the Plaintiff.
26. If the website had been constructed equally accessible to all individuals, Plaintiff would have been able to navigate the Website and find information on XXXX.
27. Additionally, Plaintiff is a tester in this litigation and seeks future compliance with all federal and state laws. Plaintiff will return to the Website to avail himself of its goods and/or services and to determine compliance with the disability access laws once it is represented to him that the XXXXXXX and Website are accessible.
28. Plaintiff is currently deterred from doing so because of Plaintiff’s knowledge of the existing barriers and uncertainty about the existence of yet other barriers on the Website. If the barriers are not removed, Plaintiff will face unlawful and discriminatory barriers again.
29. The barriers identified above violate easily accessible, well-established industry standard guidelines for making websites accessible to people with visual-impairments that use SRS to access websites. Given the prevalence of websites that have implemented these standards and created accessible websites, it is readily achievable to construct an accessible website without undue burden on the XXXXXXX or a fundamental alteration of the purpose of the Website.
30. Compliance with W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 AA standards are a viable remedy for these deficiencies and a standard that has been adopted by California courts for website accessibility.
31. It’s been established that failure to remove these inaccessible conditions violates the ADA and California law and requiring compliance with industry access standards is a remedy available to the plaintiff.
32. The Website was intentionally designed, and based on information and belief, it is the Defendants’, policy and practice to deny Plaintiff access to the Website, and as a result, denies the goods and services that are otherwise available to patrons of the XXXXXXX.
33. Due to the failure to construct and operate the website in line with industry standards, Plaintiff has been denied equal access to Defendant’s XXXXXXX and the various goods, services, privileges, opportunities and benefits offered to the public by the XXXXXXX.
34. Given the nature of the barriers and violations alleged herein, the plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that there are other violations and barriers on the website, and/or at the XXXXXXX that relate to his disability. In addition to the barriers he personally encountered, Plaintiff intends to seek removal of all barriers on the Website that relate to his disability. See Doran v. 7-Eleven (9th Cir. 2008) 524 F.3d 1034 (holding that once a plaintiff encounters one barrier, they can sue to have all barriers that relate to their disability removed regardless of whether they personally encountered the barrier).
35. Plaintiff will amend the complaint, to provide further notice regarding the scope of the additional demanded remediation in the event additional barriers are uncovered through discovery. However, please be on notice that the plaintiff seeks to have all barriers related to his disability remedied.
I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all
Defendants.) (42 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq.)
36. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint. The XXXXXXX is a public accommodation with the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 USC § 12181.
37. The website provided by the Defendant is a service, privilege or advantage and extension of XXXXXXX physical presence and terrestrial services.
38. When a business provides services such as a website, it must provide an
39. Here, an accessible website has not been provided. A failure to provide an accessible website is unlawful discrimination against persons with disabilities.
40. Under the ADA, it is an act of discrimination to fail to ensure that the privileges, advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods and services of any place of public accommodation is offered on a full and equal basis by anyone who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. See: 42 U.S.C.§ 12182(a). Discrimination is defined, inter alia, as follows: “A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the accommodation would work a fundamental alteration of those services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).”
41. Here, the failure to ensure that the accessible facilities were available and ready to be used by the plaintiff is a violation of the law.
42. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures and rights set forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.
II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) (Cal. Civ.
Code § 51-53.)
43. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint. The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishment of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal. Civ. Code §51(b).
44. The Unruh Act provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of the
Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).
45. Defendants’ acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered.
46. Because the violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act resulted in difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment for the plaintiff, the defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty. Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56(a)-(c).
47. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures and rights set forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Court award damages and provide relief as follows:
1. A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendants were in violation of the requirements of the ADA due to Defendants’ failures to take action to ensure that its Website was fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually-impaired
2. For equitable nominal damages for violation of civil rights. See Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S.Ct. 792 (2021) and any other equitable relief the Court finds appropriate.
3. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 12181, a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from violating the ADA with respect to its website.
4. Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act § 512, which provides for actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 for each offense.
5. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.
Dated: Month, Day, Year
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Here is another example of a lawsuit filed by Andres Gomez using Morse Mehrban, Esq.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL DISTRICT, LIMITED CIVIL CASE
ANDRES GOMEZ, Case No.
Plaintiff, [Prayer does not exceed $10,000]
v. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (CIVIL CODE SECTION 51)
1. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names or capacities of those sued herein under the fictitious
names DOES ONE through TEN and sues them herein pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474.
2. At all times mentioned herein, ANDRES GOMEZ (“Plaintiff”) has been legally blind and has required screen reader software to vocalize visual website content on computer and mobile devices screens.
3. At all times mentioned herein, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; and DOES 1 – 10 (“Defendants”) have operated a XXXXX at address.
4. At all times mentioned herein, as part of their public accommodation goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations, Defendants have offered the public uses (WEBSITE), a website permitting the public to learn about the XXXXX and review its menus.
5. On or about April 26, 2021, Plaintiff visited the website in order to learn about the XXXXXXXX and review its menus but was unable to do so because the website was incompatible with screen reader software. According to the evaluation performed by Be Accessible Inc., a web accessibility company, the incompatibility arose out of missing form labels, empty buttons and links, scrolling content, insufficient color contrast and menu images.
6. By violating 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), (iii) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.302(a); 36.303(a),
(c)(1), Defendants violated Civil Code section 51.
Pursuant to Civil Code section 52(a), Plaintiff prays for damages in the amount of $4,000, reasonable attorney feed, and costs.
Dated: Month, Day, Year
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Here is another example of a lawsuit filed by Andres Gomez using Tanya Moore, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANDRES GOMEZ, No.
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT ASSERTING DENIAL
vs. OF RIGHT OF ACCESS UNDER
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX THE AMERICANS WITH
Defendant. DISABILITIES ACT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
1. This is a civil rights action by plaintiff ANDRES GOMEZ (“Plaintiff”) against defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (“Defendant”) for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and related California statutes.
2. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney fees and costs, against Defendant pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.) (“ADA”) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 51-53) (“Unruh Act”).
3. Plaintiff is a resident of El Monte, California, who is visually impaired, and legally blind. He cannot use a computer or mobile device without the assistance of screen-reader software (“SRS”). Consequently, Plaintiff is “physically disabled,” as defined by all applicable California and United States laws, and a member of the public whose rights are protected by these laws.
4. Defendant is a corporation which, now and at all times relevant, has owned and/or operated the brick-and-mortar XXXX known as XXXXXX, located at Address (“the Hotel”), and the Hotel’s website, located at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (last accessed Date) (“the Website”).
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADA claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
6. Supplemental jurisdiction for claims brought under parallel California law – arising from the same nucleus of operative facts – is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claims are formed from the same case and/or controversy and are related to Plaintiff’s ADA claims. A violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act. (Cal. Civil Code §51(f)).
7. A substantial portion of the actions complained of herein took place within the jurisdiction of this District. Accordingly, venue is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
8. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporates them herein as if separately re-pled.
9. The Hotel is a brick-and-mortar place of lodging, which is open to the public, intended for non-residential use, and its operation affects commerce. The Hotel is therefore a public accommodation as defined by applicable state and federal laws.
10. The ADA mandates that places of public accommodation, like the Hotel, provide auxiliary aids and services to make visual materials available to individuals who are visually impaired, including Plaintiff. Under the ADA, a place of public accommodation engages in unlawful discrimination if it fails 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.” 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).
11. The Website comprises some of the facilities, privileges, and advantages offered by Defendant to patrons of the Hotel in connection with their patronage at the Hotel. Among the services offered by the Website include: description and images of types of rooms and suites offered; information on specials and packages offered; information on dining and retail offerings at the Hotel; information on special events and regularly scheduled activities; and information on golf and spa facilities offered at the Hotel.
12. Plaintiff visited the Website on or about March 17, 2021 as a prospective customer wishing to access the goods and services offered by the Hotel and hoping to reserve a room at the Hotel for future travel. Plaintiff wanted to obtain information on the features and amenities offered at the Hotel, deals and promotions, and review the accessible features provided at the Hotel for visually
13. When Plaintiff attempted to navigate the Website, he encountered the following accessibility design faults that prevented him from navigating the Website successfully using SRS on his mobile devices:
a) Images on the Website lack functional text equivalents readable by SRS.
b) The Website contains links/buttons that are not readable by SRS, including but not limited to those for the main menu.
14. Subsequent investigation has identified the following additional barriers to Plaintiff’s access on the Website, which Plaintiff is also now aware of:
a) Image alternative text contains placeholders or file names which do not adequately describe the image.
b) Elements are not properly nested according to their specifications.
c) ARIA control lacks a label.
d) CSS positioning makes pages unreadable when style sheets are turned off.
e) Pages lack titles.
f) The same ID is used on more than one element.
g) Links are not identified by accessible names.
h) Images lack proper alternative text or accessible names.
i) HTML form controls lack accessible names.
j) Data tables do not use header elements or other appropriate table mark-up to make the headers programmatically determinable from within table content.
k) Frame elements lack proper title attributes.
l) PDF are not properly tagged and/or lack XMP metadata stream with information needed by screen readers.
m) Links are not underlined or otherwise identified via style attributes.
n) Several links on a page share the same link text and/or surrounding context, but go to different destinations.
o) The metadata stream in the Catalog dictionary does not include the PDF/UA identifier.
p) CSS, rather than structural markup, is used to modify the visual layout of the content, and the modified layout changes he meaning of the content.
q) The language of the page is not identified.
r) Controls with the same visible label lack proper context.
s) Text and background colors lack proper contrast ratio.
t) Headings are empty.
u) Some, but not all, color attributes are set.
v) Radio buttons have generic labels and lack legend text explaining the label.
w) The CSS outline or border style obscures the focus outline around focusable elements.
x) Links open in new windows without warning.
y) CSS animations or transitions are used in interactions without the option to turn them off.
z) Links use general text which does not explain the link purpose.
15. Plaintiff personally encountered design flaws on the Website which rendered it inaccessible to him, causing him difficulty and inconvenience when attempting to navigate the Website. These barriers interfered with, if not outright denied, Plaintiff’s ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations offered by the Hotel and its Website.
16. By failing to make the Website accessible to the visually impaired, Defendant denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the facilities, privileges, or advantages offered to its customers. If the Website had been constructed equally accessible to all individuals, Plaintiff would have been able to navigate the Website, obtain the information he was seeking, and reserve a room.
17. Plaintiff has been deterred from returning to the Website as a result of these prior experiences, his knowledge that the Website is inaccessible to him, and the uncertainty over whether additional barriers to his access exist currently or will in the future.
18. The barriers identified in paragraph 13 and 14 above are only those that Plaintiff is presently aware of. Other barriers to the visually impaired may in fact exist on the Website. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint once such additional barriers are identified as it is Plaintiff’s intention to have all barriers which exist on the Website and relate to his disabilities removed to afford him
full and equal access to the Website and Hotel.
19. Compliance with W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 AA standards are a viable remedy for these deficiencies and a standard that has been adopted by California courts for website accessibility.
20. Failure to remove these inaccessible conditions violates the ADA and California law and requiring compliance with industry access standards is a remedy available to Plaintiff.
21. Due to Defendant’s failure to design and operate the Website in conformance with industry standards, Plaintiff has been denied equal access to Defendant’s Hotel and Website and the various goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered to the public by the Hotel and Website due to Plaintiff’s disability.
22. The barriers identified above violate easily accessible, well-established industry standard guidelines for making websites accessible to people with visual impairments that use SRS to access websites. Accordingly, Defendant knew, or should have known, that these elements of the Website were inaccessible, violate state and federal law, and interfere with (or deny) access to the visually impaired.
23. Defendant has the financial resources and possesses sufficient control and authority to remove these barriers from the Website (without much difficulty or expense), and make the Website accessible to the visually impaired. To date, however, Defendant refuses to modify the Website to conform to accessibility standards and make the Website accessible to the visually impaired.
Defendant has intentionally maintained the Website in its current condition and has intentionally refrained from altering the Website so that it complies with the accessibility standards.
24. The (continued) presence of barriers on the Website is so obvious as to establish Defendant’s discriminatory intent. On information and belief, Plaintiff avers that evidence of this discriminatory intent includes Defendant’s refusal to adhere to relevant website accessibility guidelines, conscientious decision not to remove barriers from the Website, and allowance that Defendant’s Website continues to exist in its non-compliant state.
V. FIRST CLAIM
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Denial of “Full and Equal” Enjoyment and Use
25. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporates them herein as if
26. The Hotel is a public accommodation with the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181.
27. The Website provided by the Hotel is a service, privilege or advantage of the Hotel’s brick-and-mortar facility.
28. Title III of the ADA holds as a “general rule” that no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment (or use) of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered by any person who owns, operates, or leases a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Further, such discrimination includes the failure by such entities to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford 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. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
29. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by failing to provide an accessible Website and thereby denying Plaintiff “full and equal enjoyment” and use of the services, privileges and advantages of the Website and Hotel during each visit to the Website and each incident of deterrence.
30. When an entity can demonstrate that removal of a barrier is not readily achievable, a failure to make goods, services, facilities, or accommodations available through alternative methods is also specifically prohibited if these methods are readily achievable. Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(v).
31. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant can easily remove the design barriers on the Website without much difficulty or expense, that the cost of making the Website accessible to the visually impaired does not exceed the benefits under the particular circumstances, and that Defendant violated the ADA by failing to remove the Website barriers when it was readily achievable to do so.
32. Plaintiff seeks all relief available under the ADA (i.e., injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs, legal expenses) for these aforementioned violations. 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
VI. SECOND CLAIM
33. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporates them herein as if separately re-pled.
34. California Civil Code § 51 states, in part, that: All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
35. California Civil Code § 51.5 also states, in part that: No business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate against any person in this state because of the disability of the person.
36. California Civil Code § 51(f) specifically incorporates (by reference) an individual’s rights under the ADA into the Unruh Act.
37. Defendant’s aforementioned acts and omissions denied the visually impaired public – including Plaintiff – the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services of a business establishment because of their physical disability.
38. These acts and omissions (including the ones that violate the ADA) denied, aided or incited a denial, or discriminated against Plaintiff by violating the Unruh Act.
39. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiff suffered difficulty, discomfort, and/or embarrassment, and seeks statutory minimum damages of $4,000 for each offense.
40. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Defendant from violating the Unruh Act (and ADA), and recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred under California Civil Code § 52(a).
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant for:
1. Injunctive relief, preventive relief, or any other relief the Court deems proper.
2. Statutory minimum damages under section 52(a) of the California Civil Code according to proof.
3. Attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit.
4. Interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of this action.
5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
Dated: Month Date Year
MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Tanya E. Moore
Attorney for Plaintiff