Complaint,Petition: PAMELA HILL VS GUESS ?, INC.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                20STCV06185
                          Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Barbara Scheper


Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/14/2020 01:39 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Barel,Deputy Clerk


            1      Azar Mouzari, Esq. (State Bar No. 263461)
                   BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C.
            2      468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 238
                   Beverly Hills, California 90210
            3
                   Tel: 310-858-5567
            4      Fax: 424-286-0963
                   Email: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com
            5
                   Attorneys for Plaintiff Pamela Hill
            6
            7                                 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
            8
                                      FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
            9
          10
                     PAMELA HILL, an individual.                                                    Case No.:
          11
                                            Plaintiff,
          12                    v.
          13                                                                                        COMPLAINT
                     GUESS ?, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
          14         and DOES 1-10, inclusive.

          15                                Defendants.
          16                                                                                        JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
          17
          18
                          Plaintiff, Mrs. Pamela Hill (“Plaintiff”), alleges the following based upon information and
          19
                   belief:
          20
          21                                                           I. NATURE OF THE CASE

          22             1. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Guess ?, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
          23       (“Defendant”) seeking to put an end to the systemic civil rights violations committed by
          24
                   Defendant against Plaintiff.
          25
                         2. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading
          26
          27       software to access and read website content using her computer. Plaintiff uses the terms “blind”

          28       or “visually-impaired” herein to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal

                                                                                    COMPLAINT
                                                                                       -1-
 1   definition of blindness in that they fall within the meaning of California’s Unruh Civil Rights

 2   Act (“UCRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq. and have a visual acuity with correction of less than
 3
     or equal to 20 x 200.
 4
        3. Plaintiff, and all other visually impaired individuals, are unnecessarily denied equal
 5
     access to the same online information and goods and services offered to others because
 6
 7   Defendant’s website, https://shop.guess.com/ (the “Website”), and all subgroups of webpages

 8   contained in the Website are not fully accessible to screen-reading technology used by blind
 9
     individuals. This relegates visually impaired customers of Defendant to a second-class
10
     experience. If Defendant’s Website was accessible, then visually impaired individuals could
11
     independently access information relating to the pricing, description, and details of Defendant’s
12
13   goods and services, with the same convenience available to others. In contrast with Defendant,

14   many other businesses operate websites and mobile applications that are fully accessible to
15   visually impaired individuals.
16
        4. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant produces, markets, offers
17
     for sale, sells, and/or monetizes designer retail products and goods, including clothing, personal
18
19   goods and/or accessories, in various retailers including one(s) located within the County of Los

20   Angeles, California. The retail store(s) that offer Defendant’s products are commercial stores
21   that offer for sale clothing, accessories and other goods to the public. The retail store(s) that
22
     offer Defendant’s products, including the one(s) within the County of Los Angeles, California,
23
     are places of public accommodation open to the public.
24
25      5. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owns, operates, manages,

26   updates and/or monetizes its Website, which provides to the public a wide array of goods,
27   services, discounts, gift cards, and/or information concerning the brick-and-mortar retail store(s)
28

                                                 COMPLAINT
                                                    -2-
 1   that offer Defendant’s products, including the one(s) located in the County of Los Angeles. The

 2   Website also offers the public online features that allow the sale of Defendant’s goods and
 3
     services.
 4
        6. Defendant’s Website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for
 5
     visually impaired customers to properly and fully utilize the Website. Specifically, these barriers
 6
 7   make it impossible for Plaintiff to have full access to the Website and independently purchase

 8   goods and services online and access information concerning discounts, brick-and-mortar stores,
 9
     and other goods and services offered by Defendant online.
10
        7. Defendant thus excludes the visually impaired from full and equal participation in the
11
     growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace
12
13   and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer

14   technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life for visually impaired
15   individuals, allowing them to fully and independently access a variety of goods and services,
16
     including making online purchase of consumer products.
17
        8. Despite readily available methods to render websites fully accessible to all, such as the
18
19   methods in use by other businesses, which make correct and proper use of alternative text,

20   accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text, and labels, Defendant has failed to design,
21   construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
22
     Plaintiff and other visually-impaired individuals.
23
        9. Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its
24
25   products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with the physical location(s) that offer

26   for sale Defendant’s products, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the UCRA.
27
28

                                                COMPLAINT
                                                   -3-
 1      10. The California legislature has provided a clear, national mandate for the elimination of

 2   discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted California’s UCRA, Cal. Civ.
 3
     Code § 51, et seq. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living,
 4
     and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites
 5
     and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons.
 6
 7   Specifically, California state law mandates equal protection of persons with disabilities,

 8   requiring that places of public accommodation provide access to goods, services and facilities for
 9
     persons with disabilities. See UCRA, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq.
10
        11. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its Website, Plaintiff will
11
     continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, access and complete a transaction
12
13   on the Website. Because Defendant’s Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-

14   impaired consumers in violation of the UCRA, this complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
15   relief to correct Defendant’s policies and practices to include measures necessary to ensure
16
     compliance with federal and state law and to include monitoring of such measures, to update and
17
     remove accessibility barriers on the Website so that Plaintiff may be able to independently and
18
19   privately use Defendant’s Website. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to Plaintiff

20   for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
21                                  II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22
        12. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. This Court also has personal
23
     jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts and continues to conduct a substantial and
24
25   significant amount of business in the County of Los Angeles, in the State of California and

26   because Defendant’s offending Website is available across California. Brick-and-mortar
27
28

                                                COMPLAINT
                                                   -4-
 1   location(s) of retail store(s) that offer for sale Defendant’s products are also located within the

 2   County of Los Angeles.
 3
        13. Defendant has been and is committing the acts alleged herein through its Website
 4
     accessible in the County of Los Angeles, and has been and is violating the rights of Plaintiff and
 5
     other consumers with disabilities in this County, and has been and is causing injury to Plaintiff in
 6
 7   this County. All events giving rise to Plaintiff’s causes of action took place in the State of

 8   California, County of Los Angeles. Therefore, jurisdiction of this Court is proper.
 9
        14. Venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiff resides in the County of Los Angeles,
10
     Defendant conducts and continues to conduct a substantial and significant amount of business in
11
     this County, Defendant is also subject to personal jurisdiction in this County, and a substantial
12
13   portion of the conduct complained of herein occurred in this County.

14                                              III. PARTIES
15      15. Plaintiff, at all times relevant and as alleged herein, is a resident of Los Angeles, California.
16
        16. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. Plaintiff uses screen-reader
17
     software to access and operate websites and mobile applications. She is knowledgeable about
18
19   various tools which allow visually impaired individuals to access websites, including various

20   screen-reader software.
21      17. Plaintiff has attempted to use Defendant’s Website in order to access information
22
     concerning Defendant’s goods and services available online and in brick-and-mortar retail
23
     store(s). She has been unable to access information and goods and services offered to others
24
25   through the Website. She desires to use Defendant’s Website and has the necessary computer

26   technology to do so if it were fully accessible to the visually impaired.

27
28

                                                  COMPLAINT
                                                     -5-
 1      18. The access barriers Plaintiff has encountered on Defendant’s Website have deterred

 2   Plaintiff from purchasing goods and services through Defendant’s Website as well as visiting the
 3
     brick-and-mortar location(s) that offer for sale Defendant’s products.
 4
        19. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant owns, operates,
 5
     manages, updates and/or monetizes its Website, which provides to the public a wide array of
 6
 7   goods, services, discounts, gift cards, and/or information concerning brick-and-mortar retail

 8   store(s) that offer for sale Defendant’s products, including the one(s) located in the County of
 9
     Los Angeles. The Website also offers the public online features that allow the sale of
10
     Defendant’s goods and services.
11
        20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times,
12
13   Defendant has continuously been doing business in Los Angeles, California.

14      21. The brick-and-mortar location(s) that offer for sale Defendants’ products, including the
15   retail store(s) located within the County of Los Angeles, California, are commercial stores that
16
     offer for sale clothing, accessories and other goods to the public. Those retail store(s) within the
17
     County of Los Angeles, California are places of public accommodation open to the public. See
18
19   UCRA, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq. Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege, or advantage of

20   those physical location(s). Through the Website, customers may review information and make
21   purchases relating Defendant’s goods and services offered online and in physical brick-and-
22
     mortar location(s).
23
        22. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s Website have caused a denial of
24
25   Plaintiff’s full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular

26   basis from full access to Defendant’s Website. Similarly, the access barriers Plaintiff
27
28

                                                 COMPLAINT
                                                    -6-
 1   encountered on Defendant’s Website have impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods

 2   and services offered at brick-and-mortar location(s) that offer for sale Defendant’s products.
 3
        23. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of
 4
     defendants, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said
 5
     DOE defendants by such fictitious names.
 6
 7      24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that each of the defendants

 8   designated herein as a DOE is responsible for the unlawful acts as herein alleged, and Plaintiff
 9
     will ask leave of the Court to amend this complaint to show its true names and capacities when
10
     same have been ascertained.
11
        25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned
12
13   Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees each of the other, acting

14   within the course and scope of said agency and employment, with the full knowledge and
15   consent of each of the Defendants. Each of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein were made
16
     known to and ratified by each of the Defendants (including any DOE defendant).
17
        26. Defendant and each and every DOE Defendant shall be referred to collectively as
18
19   “Defendants” hereafter.

20                                 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21      27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants manage, own,
22
     operate, partner with and/or collaborate with brick-and-mortar location(s) that offer Defendants’
23
     goods and services for sale to the general public, including but not limited to commercial retail
24
25   store(s) that are places of public accommodation.

26      28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants operate, maintain,
27   update, monetize and/or own a branded commercial Internet website located at
28

                                                COMPLAINT
                                                   -7-
 1   https://shop.guess.com/ for potential and existing customers to conveniently obtain information

 2   and make purchases related to Defendants’ goods and services, which include clothing,
 3
     accessories and other goods and services. Among other features on the Website, Defendants
 4
     promote accessing information about Defendant’s products and brick-and-mortar store(s) that
 5
     offer for sale Defendants’ products and making purchases online through the Website. Through
 6
 7   its Website, Defendants provide to the public a wide array of goods, services, discounts, gift

 8   cards, and/or information concerning brick-and-mortar retail store(s) that offer for sale
 9
     Defendants’ products, including the one(s) located in the County of Los Angeles.
10
        29. Customers use Defendants’ Website to access many goods and services available at
11
     brick-and-mortar location(s) that offer Defendant’s products.
12
13      30. It is undisputed that the Internet has become a significant source of information for

14   conducting business and for doing everyday activities such as shopping, banking, etc., for
15   sighted and visually impaired individuals. When properly accessible, the Internet provides
16
     individuals with disabilities significant independence. Visually impaired individuals regularly
17
     access a broad range of accessible Internet websites through the use of screen-reader technology,
18
19   which can translate visual information on a website into nonvisual formats such as synthesized

20   speech and refreshable Braille.
21      31. Visually impaired individuals regularly access a broad range of accessible Internet
22
     websites through the use of screen-reader technology, which can translate visual information on
23
     a website into nonvisual formats such as synthesized speech and refreshable Braille.
24
25      32. Except for legally blind individuals whose residual vision allows them to use them to use

26   magnification, screen reading technology is the only method which allows visually impaired
27
28

                                                COMPLAINT
                                                   -8-
 1   individuals independent access to the Internet. In this case, Plaintiff can only access the Internet

 2   independently with the assistance of a screen-reader.
 3
        33. For the screen reader technology to function, the information on a website must be
 4
     capable of being rendered into meaningful text. If the website content is constructed such that it
 5
     cannot be rendered into meaningful text, visually impaired individuals are unable to access the
 6
 7   same content available to sighted individuals because they cannot detect what is depicted on the

 8   screen and, for example, click where required to access further information and services.
 9
        34. There are well-established industry adopted guidelines for making websites accessible to
10
     visually impaired individuals. These guidelines have been in place for at least several years and
11
     have been followed successfully by other large business entities in making their websites
12
13   accessible. The Web Accessibility Initiative (“WAI”), a project of the World Wide Web

14   Consortium which is the leading standards organization of the Web, has developed guidelines for
15   website accessibility.
16
        35. The federal government has also promulgated website accessibility standards under
17
     Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These guidelines are readily available via the Internet, so
18
19   that a business designing a website can easily access them.

20      36. These guidelines recommend several basic and easily to implement components for
21   making websites accessible, including, but not limited to: adding invisible alt-text to graphics;
22
     ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard and screen reader; ensuring that
23
     image maps are accessible; removing empty links or headings which are confusing; removing
24
25   documents which do not allow screen-readers to properly read the text; and adding headings and

26   links so that visually impaired people can easily navigate the site. Without these very basic
27   components, a website will be inaccessible to visually impaired persons using screen readers.
28

                                                COMPLAINT
                                                   -9-
 1      37. In this case, based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have a

 2   policy and practice of denying the visually impaired full access to their Website, including
 3
     access to the goods and services offered by Defendants through their Website. Due to
 4
     Defendants’ failure and refusal to remove access barriers to their Website, visually impaired
 5
     individuals have been and are being denied equal access to physical location(s) that offer
 6
 7   Defendants’ products, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the

 8   public through their Website.
 9
        38. Defendants deny the visually impaired full access to goods, services and information
10
     made available through their Website by preventing them from freely navigating the Website.
11
        39. Defendants’ Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by visually
12
13   impaired persons using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers are pervasive and

14   include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text or text equivalent on graphics, inaccessible forms,
15   the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links and
16
     headings, inability to complete important tasks using the keyboard and screen reader alone, and
17
     content which is not fully readable or navigable using a screen reader.
18
19      40. Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a

20   website. Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a screen
21   reader can speak the alternative text while a sighted user sees the picture. Alt-text does not
22
     change the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves
23
     over the picture. There are many important pictures on Defendants’ Website that lack a text
24
25   equivalent. The lack of Alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately

26   vocalizing a description of the graphics. Screen readers detect and vocalize Alt-text to provide a
27
28

                                                 COMPLAINT
                                                    - 10 -
 1   description of the image to a blind computer user. As a result, visually impaired customers of

 2   Defendants are unable to effectively determine what is on the Website and fully browse the site.
 3
        41. Defendants’ Website also lacks prompting information and accommodations necessary to
 4
     allow visually impaired shoppers who use screen readers to locate and accurately fill-out online
 5
     information. Specifically, due to the lack of adequate and functional labeling, visually impaired
 6
 7   customers cannot, for example, independently and fully access and utilize the Website.

 8      42. Defendants’ Website also includes numerous instances of empty links, labels and/or
 9
     headings which prevent visually-impaired individuals from recognizing the function or purposes
10
     of links, labels and/or headings contained in the Website. If a link, label or heading contains no
11
     text, the function or purpose of the link, heading or heading will not be presented to the user.
12
13   This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen reader users.

14      43. As another example of barriers present on Defendant’s Website, there are several
15   occurrences where functions cannot be performed using a keyboard and screen reader. This
16
     includes, but is not limited, to the section relating to Defendant’s products.
17
        44. Due to Defendants’ Website inaccessibility, visually impaired customers of Defendants
18
19   cannot independently investigate goods and services offered by Defendants and make purchases

20   via the Internet as sighted individuals can and do.
21      45. Defendants’ Website thus contains significant access barriers which deny full and equal
22
     access to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use their Website and who would otherwise be able to
23
     fully and equally enjoy the benefits of the physical location(s) that offer for sale Defendants’
24
25   products.

26      46. Plaintiff has personally patronized Defendants’ Website in the past, and intends to
27   continue to patronize Defendants’ Website. However, unless Defendant is required to eliminate
28

                                                 COMPLAINT
                                                    - 11 -
 1   the access barriers at issue, and required to change their policies so that access barriers do not

 2   reoccur on Defendants’ Website, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full access to the Website as
 3
     described, and will be deterred from fully using Defendants’ Website.
 4
        47. Specifically, the last time Plaintiff attempted to do business with Defendants using their
 5
     Website was in or around late 2019, and Plaintiff still encountered barriers to access on their
 6
 7   Website. Despite past and recent attempts to do business with Defendants on their Website, the

 8   numerous access barriers contained on the Website and encountered by Plaintiff have denied
 9
     Plaintiff full and equal access to Defendants’ Website. Plaintiff, as a result of the barriers on the
10
     Website, continues to be deterred on a regular basis from accessing Defendant’s website.
11
     Likewise, based on the numerous access barriers Plaintiff has been precluded from the full and
12
13   equal enjoyment of physical location(s) that offer for sale Defendants’ products.

14      48. If Defendants’ Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently
15   navigate the website, complete a desired transaction, and find a location to visit.
16
        49. Through her many attempts to use Defendants’ Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge
17
     of the access barriers that make these privileges, goods or services inaccessible and
18
19   independently unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.

20      50. There are readily available and easy to implement guidelines, available to Defendant on
21   the Internet, for designing, constructing and maintaining websites to be accessible to blind and
22
     visually-impaired persons. Other large business entities have used these guidelines, or have
23
     otherwise been able, to make their websites accessible, including but not limited to: adding alt-
24
25   text to graphics, including labels for each form control and text for all links, providing

26   alternatives to inaccessible content and ensuring that all significant functions can be performed
27   using a keyboard. In addition, incorporating these basic changes and adding certain elements to
28

                                                 COMPLAINT
                                                    - 12 -
 1   Defendants’ Website accessibility would not fundamentally alter the nature of Defendants’

 2   business nor would it result in an undue burden to Defendants.
 3
        51. Because maintaining and providing a website where all functions can be performed using
 4
     a keyboard, would provide full, independent and equal accessible to all consumers, Plaintiff
 5
     alleges that Defendants have engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including but not
 6
 7   limited to the following policies or practices:

 8              a. Construction and maintenance of a Website that is inaccessible to visually-
 9
                    impaired individuals, including Plaintiff;
10
                b. Failure to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently intuitive so as to be
11
                    equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff; and,
12
13              c. Failure to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of substantial

14                  harm and discrimination to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
15      52. Because Defendants’ Website has never been equally accessible, and because Defendants
16
     lack a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause the Website to become and remain
17
     accessible, Defendants therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration that have
18
19   the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.

20      53. If Defendants’ Website were equally and fully accessible to all, Plaintiff and similarly
21   situated visually impaired people could independently view information on the Website, access
22
     details relating to physical location(s) that offer for sale Defendants’ products, make purchases of
23
     goods and services online and review information relating to other goods and services available
24
25   via Defendants’ Website.

26
27
28

                                                 COMPLAINT
                                                    - 13 -
 1       54. Although Defendants may currently have centralized policies regarding the maintenance

 2   and operation of their Website, Defendants lack a plan and policy reasonably calculated to make
 3
     the Website fully and equally accessible to, and independently usable by, the visually impaired.
 4
         55. Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will continue
 5
     to be unable to independently use the Defendants’ Website in violation of their rights.
 6
 7                                    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
                                   Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act
 8                               (California Civil Code §§ 51, 52, et seq.)
                                    (Injunctive Relief And Damages)
 9
10       56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs alleged above and each

11   and every other paragraph hereafter necessary or helpful to state this cause of action as though
12   fully set forth herein.
13
         57. The Unruh Civil Rights Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are
14
     entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all
15
16   business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the state of

17   California. See Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).
18       58. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants manage, own,
19
     operate, partner with and/or collaborate with brick-and-mortar location(s) that offer Defendants’
20
     goods and services for sale to the general public, including but not limited to commercial retail
21
     store(s) that are places of public accommodation. Those retail store(s) are commercial stores that
22
23   offer for sale clothing, accessories and other goods to the public. Defendants’ business

24   transactions and/or establishments are within the jurisdiction of the State of California, and as
25
     such are obligated to comply with the provisions of the URCA, California Civil Code §§ 51, et
26
     seq.
27
28

                                                 COMPLAINT
                                                    - 14 -
 1      59. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owns, operates, manages,

 2   updates and/or monetizes its Website, which provides to the public a wide array of goods,
 3
     services, discounts, gift cards, and/or information concerning the brick-and-mortar retail store(s)
 4
     that offer for sale Defendants’ goods, including the one(s) located in the County of Los Angeles.
 5
     The Website also offers the public online features that allow the sale of Defendant’s goods and
 6
 7   services.

 8      60. Upon information and belief, Defendants generate significant revenue from the sale of
 9
     goods and services through their Website. Defendants’ Website is a service provided by
10
     Defendants that is not fully accessible to patrons who are blind or visually-impaired like
11
     Plaintiff. This inaccessibility denies blind and visually-impaired patrons full and equal access to
12
13   the facilities, goods, and services that Defendants make available to the non-disabled public.

14   Defendants are violating the UCRA, Civil Code §§ 51, et seq., by denying visually-impaired
15   customers the goods and services provided on their Website. These violations are ongoing.
16
        61. Defendants’ actions constitute intentional discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of
17
     a disability, in violation of the UCRA, Civil Code §§ 51, et seq., because, among other things,
18
19   (1) Defendants have constructed, maintained, owned, monetized and/or operated a Website that

20   is inaccessible to visually impaired individuals, such as Plaintiff; (2) Defendants have opted to
21   maintain this Website in such an inaccessible form despite well-established and readily
22
     implementable industry guidelines for making websites accessible; (3) and Defendants have
23
     failed to take action to correct and rectify these barriers even after being on notice of the
24
25   discrimination that such barriers may create for visually impaired individuals, such as Plaintiff.

26      62. Defendants are further violating the UCRA, Civil Code §§ 51, et seq., because the
27   conduct as alleged herein violates various provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act
28

                                                 COMPLAINT
                                                    - 15 -
 1   (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., for the reasons set forth above. Under Cal. Civ. Code §

 2   51(f), a violation of an individual’s rights under the ADA also constitutes a violation under the
 3
     UCRA. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged herein includes, inter alia, the violation of
 4
     the rights of persons with disabilities set forth in Title III of the ADA and, therefore, also violates
 5
     the Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).
 6
 7      63. Unless the Court enjoins Defendants from continuing to engage in these unlawful

 8   practices, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to
 9
     injunctive relief remedying the discrimination. Plaintiff expressly limits the cost of all injunctive
10
     relief sought to $15,000 or less.
11
        64. Plaintiff is also entitled to statutory minimum damages pursuant to UCRA, Civil Code §
12
13   52 for each offense. Plaintiff hereby expressly limits the total amount sought for every single

14   offense to $34,999 or less.
15      65. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
16
                                          PRAYER FOR RELIEF
17
     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays pray for judgment against Defendants, as follows:
18
19      A. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from further violations of

20          the UCRA, Civil Code §§ 51, et seq., with respect to their Website,

21          https://shop.guess.com/, and all of the webpages and urls contained therein;
22
        B. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to take the steps necessary
23
            to make their Website readily and fully accessible to and usable by blind and visually-
24
            impaired individuals. Plaintiff expressly limits the cost of injunctive relief sought in
25
26          sections A and B to $15,000 or less;

27
28

                                                  COMPLAINT
                                                     - 16 -
 1      C. An award of statutory minimum damages of $4,000 per violation pursuant to § 52(a) of

 2          the California Civil Code;
 3
        D. For attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws including, without
 4
            limitation, pursuant to California Civil Code § 52(a);
 5
        E. For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law;
 6
 7      F. For costs of suit; and

 8      G. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
 9
                                      DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
10
        Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests a trial by jury on all appropriate issues raised in this
11
     Complaint.
12
13
     Dated: February 10, 2020                      BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C.
14
15
                                                                                               .




16                                                 Azar Mouzari, Esq.
                                                   Attorney for Plaintiff
17                                                 PAMELA HILL
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

                                                COMPLAINT
                                                   - 17 -