FIALLO v. CHICAGO STEAK COMPANY, INC.

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Holger Fiallo
    • Filing date: March 24, 2020
    • State of filing: Illinois

    Defendant

    • Name: Chicago Steak Company, Inc.
    • Website: www.mychicagosteak.com
    • Industry: Food Products
    • Summary: Chicago Steak Company is a provider of gourmet dry aged beef, USDA Prime steaks, seafood and desserts.

    Case Summary

    On March 24, 2020, Holger Fiallo filed a Complaint in Illinois Federal court against Chicago Steak Company, Inc. . Plaintiff Holger Fiallo alleges that www.mychicagosteak.com is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the promotional offer is not accessible to screen reader users.
    • Unable to navigate using a keyboard
    • The product options fields on Defendant’s Website are not accessible. Fields that require user input must be in the tab index

    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 its Website was 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 them 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 Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (“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), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (same)
    • The provision of 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