Katt v. Amerisleep, LLC

Summary

On December 26, 2019, David Katt filed a Complaint in Colorado Federal court against Amerisleep, LLC . Plaintiff David Katt alleges that www.amerisleep.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Amerisleep produces and sells eco-friendly, memory foam mattresses at retail stores and via its website.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Many features on the Website lacks alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image.
• Many features on the Website also fail to Add a label element or title attribute for each field.
• The Website also contains a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage.

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.
• Declaratory Relief

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action AMERISLEEP, LLC was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, andthe relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that AMERISLEEP, LLC took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website is fully accessible to, andindependenA permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and 28 CFR § 36.504(a) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Websiteis fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested byPlaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 8 above;tly usable by, individuals with visual disabilities;
• An award of costs and expenses of this action;
• Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505, including costs of monitoring Defendant’s compliance with the judgment (seeHadix v. Johnson, 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1998), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 527 U.S. 343 (1999); Jenkins v. Missouri, 127 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 1997); Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761 (5th Cir. 1996); Stewart v. Gates, 987 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court should permit compensation for the post judgment monitoringefforts by the plaintiff’s counsel that are “useful and necessary to ensure compliance with the court’s orders”); Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984); Adams v. Mathis, 752 F.2d 553 (11th Cir. 1985); Willie M. v. Hunt, 732 F.2d 383, 385, 387 (4th Cir. 1984); Bond v. Stanton, 630 F.2d 1231, 1233-34 (7th Cir. 1980); Northcross v. Board ofEduc., 611 F.2d 624, 637 (6th Cir. 1979) (“Services devoted to reasonable monitoring of the court’s decrees, both to ensure full compliance and to ensure that the plan is indeed working…are essential to the long-term success of the plaintiff’s suit.”) (citing 3rd Circuit’s support for District Court’s award of prospective fees to plaintiff’s counsel);
• An order certifying the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and his attorneys as Class Counsel; and
• Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.