Baracco v. Adrienne Landau Designs, Inc.

          CONSENT DECREE JS-6: CASE TERMINATED

          JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         1. This 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 specified herein.

         RECITALS

         2. 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).

         3. 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.

         4. On 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.

         5. 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 respect.

         6. This 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.

         JURISDICTION

         7. 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 ADA.

         8. A 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.

         9. This 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.

         AGREED RESOLUTION

         10. 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 the Complaint.

         11. The 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.

         In resolution of this action, the Parties hereby AGREE and the Court expressly APPROVES, ENTERS, AND ORDERS the following:

         DEFINITIONS

         12. “Effective Date” means the date on which this Consent Decree is entered on the Court's Docket ...