Plaintiff
- Name: Arnold Vargas
- Filing date: June 27, 2019
- State of filing: Massachusetts
Defendant
- Name: Pods Enterprises, LLC
- Website: www.pods.com
- Industry: Real Estate
- Summary: Pods Enterprises, LLC provides customers with portable storage containers for moving and storage.
Case Summary
On June 27, 2019, Arnold Vargas filed a Complaint in Massachusetts Federal court against Pods Enterprises, LLC. Plaintiff Arnold Vargas alleges that www.pods.com is not accessible.
Case Details
Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:
- When Plaintiff was tabbing between input fields, he found that only the type of input field and current value was announced to him, without being told the purpose of the field.
- When navigating the “Quote Type” buttons, Mr. Vargas was forwarded to a new page when moving the focus from the residential radio button to the business radio button.
Mr. Vargas was left confused since he did not give a command nor select to open a new page.
Plaintiff asserts the following cause(s) of action in its Complaint:
Americans with Disabilities Act, 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 its Website is 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 Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Website is 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 paragraph 11 above. - Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive 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 Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (“Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, may file a fee petition before the Court surrenders jurisdiction. Pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987), and Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (same);
- Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate; and
- An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.
