MURPHY v. UNIVERSAL WATCH CO., INC.

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Anthony Hammond Murphy
    • Filing date: March 20, 2020
    • State of filing: Pennsylvania

    Defendant

    Case Summary

    On March 20, 2020, Anthony Hammond Murphy filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Universal Watch Co., Inc. . Plaintiff Anthony Hammond Murphy alleges that www.40nine.com www.teno.com www.steelblaze.com www.boccia.com is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • The Websites prevent screen reader users from accessing some primary content.
    • Some of the Websites fail to notify screen readers when these pop-up windows appear. 
    • The Websites does not provide a text equivalent for non-text elements.
    • The Websites use visual cues as the only means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element.

    Plaintiff asserts the following cause(s) of action in its Complaint:

    • Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

    Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

    • A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that their Websites are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with visual disabilities
    • A 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 Websites into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Websites are 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 by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraphs 12 through 25 above
    • Payment of actual, statutory, nominal, and other damages, as the Court deems proper
    • Payment of costs of suit
    • 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. See People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226, 235 (3d Cir. 2008) (“This Court, like other Courts of Appeals, allows fees to be awarded for monitoring and enforcing Court orders and judgments.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11)
    • Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
    • An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders

    Comments