Brooks v. Lola & Soto Bus. Grp., Inc.

Brooks v. Lola & Soto Bus. Grp., Inc.

Opinion

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Lola & Soto Business Group, Inc. d/b/a Miss Lola's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 11-1.) Plaintiff Valerie Brooks ("Plaintiff") filed an opposition. (ECF No. 12.) Defendant replied.¹ (ECF No. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11), with leave to amend.

I. Factual and Procedural Background²

Plaintiff alleges she is a visually impaired and legally blind individual who requires screen-reading software to read website content on her computer. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff claims she tried to visit Defendant's website, htpps://www.misslola.com/ ("the Website"), on several unspecified occasions, most recently in 2021. (Id. at 8-9.) However, in navigating the Website, Plaintiff encountered "multiple access barriers" while using screen-reading software. (Id. at 8-10.) Plaintiff also claims those [*2]  barriers "deterred and impeded [her] from the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant's store and from making purchases at such physical location." (Id. at 10.)

As factual support for her claim that the Website interfered with her access to Defendant's physical store, Plaintiff alleges only that she "was unable to find the location and hours of operation of Defendant's store on its website, preventing Plaintiff from visiting the location to purchase products and/or services." (Id.)

In terms of the offending website barriers, Plaintiff alleges she encountered several shortcomings, including most notably the lack of alternative text ("alt-text") code embedded beneath a website graphic or image that would enable the screen-reading software to describe the graphic or image for a sight-impaired user. (Id. at 8-9.) In addition to preventing Plaintiff from accessing "a fashion forward brand with the most coveted styles of the season[,]" Plaintiff complains of an inability to access information on the Website, including information about: "new arrivals, items back in stock, shoes, clothing, accessories, [and] exclusive merchandise[.]" (Id. at 9.)

On January 26, 2021, [*3]  Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging Defendant violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the California Unruh Act ("Unruh"). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182-12189; Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-52; (ECF No. 1). On April 28, 2021, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule" or "Rules") 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 11-1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an opposition on May 27, 2021. (ECF No. 12.) Defendant submitted a reply on June 3, 2021. (ECF No. 16.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.