FOLEY v. BIRDWELL CALIFORNIA!, LLC

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Ian Foley
    • Filing date: March 13, 2019
    • State of filing: New York

    Defendant

    • Name: Birdwell California!, LLC
    • Website: www.birdwell.com
    • Industry: Apparel
    • Summary: Birdwell Beach Britches is a board shorts company in Southern California.

    Case Summary

    On March 13, 2019, Ian Foley filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Birdwell California!, LLC. Plaintiff Ian Foley alleges that www.birdwell.com is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Defendant’s Website prevents screen readers who navigate content sequentially from accessing primary content directly
    • Defendant fails to position important information and content before the necessary items
    • Defendant’s website has encumbrances on the product pages

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

    • Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.
      Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, Exec. Law, Article 15 § 290, et seq.
      Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R, Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40, 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 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 Plaintiffs is described more fully in paragraph 12 above
    • Payment of actual, statutory, 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 Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-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