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.

Perla Mageno v. Tahoe Joe’s Inc.

Filed

Case details

Summary

On January 30, 2019, Perla Mageno filed a Complaint in California State court against Tahoe Joe's, Inc. . Plaintiff Perla Mageno alleges that www.tahoehoes.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0, Section 508 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Tahoe Joe's is a steakhouse / restaurant.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Home 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 insufficient navigational headings
  • Locations link was inaccessible to screen reading technology

Legal claims

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

  • Violationof the Unrlh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 8 51 et seq

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement ofthis action Defendant owns, maintains, and/or operates its Website in a manner which discriminates against the blind, fails to 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 II 51, et seq;
  • A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from further violations ofthe UCRA, Civil Code 51 et seq. with respect to its website "tahoejoes.com"
  • A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make tahoejoes.corn 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; and
  • For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.