Can we count your visit?

Our analytics service records the pages you view, so we can see which ones are useful. It saves a random ID in your browser, and we never use it for advertising. Read our privacy policy.

Gomez v. Geary St. Motel Investments, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Summary

On August 23, 2019, Andres Gomez filed a Complaint in California Federal court against Geary St. Motel Investments, Inc G6 Hospitality, LLC. Plaintiff Andres Gomez alleges that www.gearyparkwaymotel.com/ is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

A motel chain located in Northern California.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Lack of a button/link/function to adjust the website formatto one that is fully readable by SRS and/or to adjust thefont.
  • Numerous images on the website lack a text equivalent readable by SRS.
  • The website contains script elements that are not identified with functional text readable by SRS.
  • The website lacks a method to permit users to skip repetitive navigation links, or “skip navigation.”
  • The website contains empty and redundant links resultingin additional and inefficient navigation by SRS users.
  • The organizational system of the tab index has not beenarranged in an intuitive or logical manner to facilitatesuccessful navigation by users of SRS.
  • The visualization of the webpage contains contrast errorssuch that the visual presentation is less than 4.5:1.
  • The Motel’s website lacks information stating if the Motelprovides auxiliary aids to assist visually impaired individuals inside the Motel.
  • The Motel’s website lacks information indicating if thebathroom has proper signage and accessibility for visuallyimpaired individuals.

Legal claims

The laws the plaintiff says the defendant broke, called causes of action.

  • Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.
  • Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • 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 websites are fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals.
  • Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 12181, a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from violation the ADA with respect to its website.
  • Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act § 513, which provides for actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 for each offense.
  • Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52.