Plaintiff
- Name: Ronald C. Kolesar, Thomas Klaus, Robert Jahoda
- Filing date: July 1, 2020
- State of filing: Pennsylvania
Defendant
- Name: Pacifica Beauty, LLC
- Website: www.pacificabeauty.com
- Industry: Beauty
- Summary: Pacifica Beauty, LLC provides personal care products and cosmetics.
Case Summary
On July 1, 2020, Ronald C. Kolesar, Thomas Klaus, Robert Jahoda filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Pacifica Beauty, LLC. Plaintiff Ronald C. Kolesar, Thomas Klaus, Robert Jahoda alleges that www.pacificabeauty.com is not accessible.
Case Details
Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:
- The Website prevents screen reader users who navigate sequentially through content from accessing some primary content directly
- Links and buttons on the Website do not describe their purpose.
- shoppers who perceive content visually will recognize the “decrease quantity” and “increase quantity” buttons on the Website and understand that by clicking them, Defendant will decrease and increase the size of their order accordingly. Unfortunately, these buttons are not labeled with sufficiently descriptive alternative text.
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 start of this action Defendant was in violation 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 Plaintiffs is described more fully in paragraph 11 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 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 Defendants have complied with the Court’s Orders
