MCCULLOUGH v. LAMPLIGHT FARMS INCORPORATED

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Ernest McCullough
    • Filing date: April 26, 2019
    • State of filing: New York

    Defendant

    • Name: Lamplight Farms Incorporated
    • Website: www.tikibrand.com
    • Industry: Consumer Goods
    • Summary: Lamplight Farms Incorporated sells Tiki brand tiki torches, outdoor lighting, and fuel.

    Case Summary

    On April 26, 2019, Ernest McCullough filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Lamplight Farms Incorporated. Plaintiff Ernest McCullough alleges that www.tikibrand.com is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Website not built in a manner that is compatible with screen reader programs.
    • Website features an account login in which the Email address is not announced properly by the screen reader.

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

    • Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 
    • New York State Human Rights Law
    • New York State Civil Rights Law

    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), 28 CFR § 36.504(a), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and the laws of New York, 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;
    • Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory damages and fines, to Plaintiff for violations of her civil rights under New York State Human Rights Law;
    • 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.

    Comments