Cesar Cotto v. Vietnoodlebar

Summary

On January 31, 2019, CESAR COTTO filed a Complaint in California State court against VIETNOODLEBAR. Plaintiff CESAR COTTO alleges that www.vietnoodlebar.net is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0, Section 508 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Restaurant

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Home pages has graphics, links & buttons that are not labeled or incorrectly labeled and/or lack alternative text
• Pages with insufficient navigational headings
• Menu links & descriptions inaccessible to screen reading technology
• Inaccessible checkout system

Legal claims

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

• Violationof the UCRA Civilrights Act, California Civil Code 51 et seq.

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• 1. A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant owns, 18 maintains, and/or operates its Website in a manner which discriminates against the blind, fails to 19 provide access to blind or visually-impaired individuals, and that Defendant took no action that was 20 reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website is fullyaccessible to, and independently usable by 21 blind and visually impaired individuals in violation ofCalifornia’s Unruh Act, California CivilCode 22 51, et seq; 2. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from further violations ofthe UCRA, CivilCode tj 51 et seq. with respect to its website "www.vietnoodlebar.net." 3. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make www.vietnoodlebar.net readily accessible to and usable by blind and visuallyimpaired individuals but Plaintiffhereby expressly limits the injunctive reliefto require that Defendant expend no more than $ 50,000 thereon 4. An award of statutory minimum statutory damages ofnot less than $4,000 per 2 violation pursuant to (52(a) of the California CivilCode: 5. An additional award of $4,000.00 as deterrence damages for each violation pursuant to Johnson v. Gnerfoir, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1096; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150740 (USDC Cal, E.D. 2016); 6. For attorneys’ees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws including, without 6 limitation, CivilCode Ij 52(a); 7. For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law; 8. For costs ofsuit; and, 9. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.