LUIS LICEA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS PACIFIC VIEW APARTMENTS, LP, A CALIFORNIA ENTITY

1. Thepacificview.com (the "Website") is owned and operated by the Defendant and is inaccessible to blind users. There is an integrative "nexus" between the Website and at least one physical "brick and mortar" location operated by the Defendant such that the inaccessibility of the website illegally impedes access to the goods and services offered at the physical location, which is a place of public accommodation.

2. As recently recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, "The Internet's prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy." South Dakota V. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080 , 2097 ( 2018 ) (noting that in 1992 , less than 2 percent of Americans had Internet access whereas today that number is about 89 percent). According to 2021 polling data, 93 percent of American adults use the Internet. 1 Indeed, one federal district court has noted that "few areas are more integral to 'the economic and social mainstream of American life," than the Internet's websites." Del-Orden V. Bonobos, Inc., No. 17 Civ. 2744 (PAE), 2017 WL , at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20. 2017 ); United States V. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79, 83 (2d Cir. 2001 ) ("Computers and Internet access have become virtually indispensable in the modern world of communications and information gathering.").

3. According to recent U.S. Census data, approximately 8 million Americans describe themselves as disabled because they are visually-impaired.2 Thus, depriving blind persons of equal access to commercial websites on the internet would allow American businesses to treat blind persons as second-class citizens who can be segregated from the rest of American society, which is antithetical to the very purpose that motivated Congress to enact the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § et seq., more than decades ago, as well as the enactment of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. "Congress found that 'historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some

improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem. " Del-Orden, 2017 WL , at *9 (quoting PGA Tour, Inc. V. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 674-75, 121 S. Ct. 1879 ( 2001 ) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § (a)(2))). "Congress found that 'physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right to fully participate in all aspects of society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities have been precluded from doing SO because of discrimination." Del-Orden, 2017 WL , at *9 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § (a)(1)) (emphasis added in Del-Orden). "After thoroughly investigating the problem, Congress concluded that there was a 'compelling need' for a 'clear and comprehensive national mandate' to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals, and to integrate them 'into the economic and social mainstream of American life." PGA Tour, 532 U.S. at 675 (quoting S. Rep. No. 101-116, p. 20 ( 1989 ); H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, p. 50 ( 1990 ), U.S.C.C.A.N. 1990 , pt. 2, pp. 303, 332). To remedy these ills, "Congress provided [a] broad mandate" in the ADA to effect the statute's "sweeping purpose." Id. "In a society in which business is increasingly conducted online, excluding businesses that sell services through the Internet from the ADA would[:] 'run afoul of the purposes of the ADA and would severely frustrate Congress's intent that individuals with disabilities fully enjoy the goods, services, privileges, and advantages available indiscriminately to other members of the general public". National Ass'n of the Deaf V. Netflix, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 196, 200 (D. Mass. 2012 ) (emphasis added) (quoting Carparts Distrib. Ctr. V. Auto Wholesaler's Ass' 'n, 37 F.3d 12, 20 (1st Cir. 1994 )).

4. Section 11f() 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 Act. A person who visits a business's website with intent to use its services and encounters terms or conditions that exclude the person from full and equal access to its services has standing under the Unruh Act, with no further requirement that the person enter into an agreement or transaction with the business. White V. Square, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 1019 , 1032 -33 (Cal. 2019 ).

5. Plaintiff is a blind individual who requires screen reading software to read website content and access the internet. Within the 12 months prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff attempted to access the Website in connection with Plaintiff's desire to access a brick and mortar location of