This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Declaratory Relief
ADA
Failure to Accommodate

Expensify, Inc. v. Eddie White

Published: Dec. 13, 2019 | Result Date: Oct. 18, 2019 | Filing Date: Apr. 8, 2019 |

Case number: 3:19-cv-01892-PJH Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Phyllis J. Hamilton

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kevin M. Pasquinelli
(Robins Kaplan LLP)

Steven C. Carlson
(Robins Kaplan LLP)


Defendant

Eric D. Zard
(Carlson Lynch LLP)

Todd D. Carpenter
(Lynch Carpenter LLP)

Kevin W. Tucker
(Carlson Lynch LLP)

Ronald B. Carlson
(Carlson Lynch LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Expensify Inc. filed a lawsuit against defendants Eddie White and Matt Koleslar seeking declaratory relief after defendants asserted that plaintiff violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Act, and the Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act by failing to accommodate the needs of the visually impaired via its website and mobile applications.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that it had not violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because its website did not qualify as a place of public accommodation. Plaintiff further contended that it had not violated the California Unruh Act because in prelitigation communications, defendants failed to assert facts showing the intentional discrimination necessary to state a claim under the Unruh Act. Plaintiff also contended that defendants had not exhausted administrative remedies. Plaintiff contended it was entitled to declaratory judgment that its website complied with federal and state disability law.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that the controversy was moot because defendants had executed a "release and waiver" of claims on June 19, 2019. Defendants contended there was no longer a justiciable controversy and therefore filed a motion to dismiss.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. It ruled the case was moot; the release and waiver was sufficiently compelling to convince the court there was no danger the defendants would renew the litigation.


#133673

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390