United States District Court, C.D. California
CONSENT DECREE JS-6: CASE TERMINATED
A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Consent Decree is entered into as of the Effective Date, as
defined below in Paragraph 12, by and between the following
parties: Plaintiff Andrew Baracco (“Plaintiff”)
and Defendant Adrienne Landau Designs, Inc.
(“Defendant”) (Plaintiff and Defendant shall
hereinafter be collectively referred to as the
“Parties” and individually as a
“Party”) for the purposes and on the terms
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 - 12189
(“ADA”) and its implementing regulation, 28
C.F.R. pt. 36, prohibit discrimination on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any
private entity that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates
any place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a);
28 C.F.R. § 36.201(a).
Section 51(f) of the California Civil Code provides that a
violation of the right of any individual under the ADA shall
also constitute a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
September 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against
Defendant in the Central District of California. Plaintiff
alleged that Defendant's website directed at consumers
which can be accessed by U.S. based consumers through the use
of the domain name http://www.adriennelandau.com
(the “Website” as further defined in Paragraph
15), contains barriers that prevent full and equal use by
blind persons, in violation of Title III of the ADA, 42
U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, and the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.
Defendant expressly denies that the Website violates Title
III of the ADA, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, or any other
applicable law, rule, regulation or statute. By entry into
this Consent Decree, Defendant does not acknowledge or admit
any violation of any law or any wrongdoing of any kind in any
Consent Decree resolves, settles, and compromises all issues
between the Parties based on the allegations set forth in
Plaintiff's Complaint and those claims or issues which
arise from such allegations.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a private entity that
owns and/or operates, or contracts to have operated, the
Website which is available through the internet to personal
computers, laptops, mobile devices, tablets, and other
similar technology. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's
Website is a sales and service establishment whose operations
affect commerce and a public accommodation subject to Title
III of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §12181(7); 12182(a); 28 C.F.R.
§§ 36.104, 36.201(a). Defendant denies that its
Website is a public accommodation or a place of public
accommodation or is otherwise subject to Title III of the
related cause of action, arising from the same nucleus of
operative facts and arising out of the same transactions, is
brought under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which act expressly
incorporates the ADA. Supplemental jurisdiction is exercised
with respect to that claim, which, because it does not relate
to a construction-related accessibility complaint, would not
be subject to the heightened pleading and filing requirements
that California imposes on high-frequency litigants.
See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.50,
425.55; Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5.
Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1345, and 42 U.S.C. § 12188. The
Parties agree that venue is appropriate.
Plaintiff and Defendant agree that it is in the Parties'
best interest to resolve this lawsuit on mutually agreeable
terms without further litigation. Accordingly, the Parties
agree to the entry of this Consent Decree without trial or
further adjudication of any issues of fact or law raised in
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate with
respect to the related cause of action, which arises from the
same nucleus of operative facts and transactions, under the
Unruh Civil Rights Act, which expressly incorporates the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
resolution of this action, the Parties hereby
AGREE and the Court expressly
APPROVES, ENTERS, AND ORDERS the following:
“Effective Date” means the date on which this
Consent Decree is entered on the Court's Docket ...