Andres Gomez v. Therese Ann Wunderlich, et al.
Published: Jan. 27, 2023 | Result Date: Jul. 5, 2022 | Filing Date: Jan. 19, 2022 |Case number: 3:22-cv-00355-TSH Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Aaina Duggal
(Center for Disability Access)
Russell C. Handy
(Center for Disability Access)
Raymond G. Ballister Jr.
(Center for Disability Access)
Zachary M. Best
(Center for Disability Access)
Amanda L. Seabock
(Center for Disability Access)
Josie S. Zimmermann
(Center for Disability Access)
Defendant
Ara Sahelian
(Sahelian Law Offices)
Facts
Andres Gomez is legally blind and cannot use a computer without assistance of screen-reader software (SRS). Gomez brought an action against Therese Wunderlich, Christopher Wunderlich, and Gianna Giovannoni, the owners of Napawunder, located in Napa County, as well as napawunder.com.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Act. Plaintiff contended that defendants' website was not accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Plaintiff claimed that he could not successfully navigate the website using SRS because images on the website lacked a text equivalent readable by SRS; the website contained form elements that were not identified with functional text readable by SRS; and the visualization of the webpage contained impermissibly low contrast enabling differentiation of background and foreground elements; among other issues. By failing to provide an accessible website, defendants denied plaintiff full and equal access to the facilities privileges or advantages offered to their customers. Plaintiff further alleged he had been deterred from returning to the website as a result of these prior experiences. Gomez asserted that he would return to the Website to avail himself of its goods and/or services and to determine compliance with the disability access laws once it was represented to him that the Napawunder and website were accessible, but he was currently deterred from doing so because of plaintiff's knowledge of the existing barriers and uncertainty about the existence of yet other barriers on the website.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions and argued that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff lacked standing to assert a claim under the ADA, and the Unruh act claim fell within the ADA.
Result
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390