Michael Sandoval vs The Renaissance Vault Inc

Case Number

25CV07064

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/04/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Hearing re Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff by Craig Cote

Defendant by Christian Younger

RULING

The Court will lift the stay effective March 1, 2026, and sets trial for May 6, 2026, at 11:30 am.

This Hearing

Plaintiff filed a Case Statement and reports: Plaintiff is an adult California resident who is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using a computer.  Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www. renaissancecorp.com (the “Website”) to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. Pursuant to this Court’s Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference Order, Plaintiff submits his Case Statement. 

A.  ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIFIC ISSUES ON THE SUBJECT WEBSITE The specific conditions that form the basis of the lawsuit include:

a. The home page has graphics, links, and buttons that are not labeled or are incorrectly labeled or lack alternative text (“Alt-text”). Alt-text is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website.  Web accessibility requires that Alt-text be coded with each picture so that screen-reading software can speak the Alt-text where a sighted user sees pictures.  Alt-text does not change the visual presentation, but instead a text box shows when the cursor moves over the picture.  The lack of Alt-text on these graphics prevents screen-readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics;

b. Plaintiff encountered multiple unlabeled or mislabeled buttons and links.  Without descriptive alternate text, Plaintiffs, and other screen-reader users, have no way to discern the purpose or function of the button or link; and

c. Plaintiff encountered multiple pages containing insufficient navigational headings requiring Plaintiff to expend substantial additional time to access information; and

d. Plaintiff encountered an inaccessible slideshow when attempting to access the Website requiring Plaintiff to expend substantial additional time to access information; and

e. Plaintiff was unable to browse the menu because menu links and descriptions were inaccessible to SRS; and,

f. Plaintiff was unable to place an order because of an inaccessible order system.

B. AMOUNT OF DAMAGES

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh”) provides that “a violation of the right of any individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 shall also constitute a violation of this section.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). Under the Unruh Act, a party that discriminates against a plaintiff in violation of Civ. Code § 51 shall be liable for actual damages, up to three times actual damages but “in no case” less than $4,000.00 for each time that he was discriminated against. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). In the present matter, the Plaintiff alleges one statutory minimum penalty assessment of $4,000.00 for the barriers identified on the website pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.  In addition, Plaintiff alleges a single statutory minimum penalty assessment of $4,000.00 for the deterrence damages Plaintiff is entitled to pursuant to Johnson v. Guedoir, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1096; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150740 (USDC Cal. E.D. 2016.  Plaintiff seeks a total of $8,000.00 in statutory damages.    

C.  ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 

Plaintiff demands reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined by motion.

D. DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT OF CASE

Plaintiff’s demand is as follows:

• Plaintiff demands a total of $8,000 in statutory damages; and

• Attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined by motion; and,

• A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from further violations

of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.  § 12181 et seq., and UCRA, Civil Code § 51 et seq. with respect to its operation of the website.  

The Court’s Conclusions

This is not complicated litigation; indeed, it amounts to a small claims action. There is no need to just kick the can down the alley. Lift the stay and set a trial date.