Cesar Cotto v. Parkstone Wood Kitchen

Summary

On January 30, 2019, Cesar Cotto filed a Complaint in California State court against Parkstone Wood Kitchen. Plaintiff Cesar Cotto alleges that www.parkstonerestaurants.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0, Section 508 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Parkstone Wood Kitchen is a restuarant and wood fired kitchen.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• home page has graphics, links, and buttons that are not labeled or are incorrectly labeled, or lack alternative text ("Alt-text")
• multiple unlabeled or mislabeled buttons and links
• multiple pages containing unlabeled graphics, links, and buttons
• multiple pages containing insufficient navigational headings
• unable to browse the menu because menu links and descriptions were inaccessible to screen reading technology

Legal claims

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

• Violation of the 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 Defendant owns, maintains, and/or operates its Website in a manner which discriminates against the blind, fails to 20 provide access to blind or visually-impaired individuals, and that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of California’s Unruh Act, California Civil Code 51, et seq;
• A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from further violations of the UCRA, Civil Code 51 et seq. with respect to its website "www.parkstonerestaurants.com."
• A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make www.parkstonerestaurants.com, readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals but Plaintiff hereby expressly limits the injunctive relief to require that Defendant expend no more than $50,000 thereon;
• An award of statutory minimum statutory damages of not less than $4,000 per violation pursuant to 52(a) of the California Civil Code
• An additional award of $ 4,000.00 as deterrence damages for each violation pursuant to Johnson v. Guedoir, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1096; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150740 (USDC Cal, E.D. 2016);
• For attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws including, without limitation, Civil Code 52(a);
• For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law
• For costs of suit
• For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper