Brooks

Brooks v. Pressed Juicery, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 20202:19-cv-01687California4,018 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on No. 2:19-cv-01687-KJM-CKD behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 14 PRESSED JUICERY, INC.; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the court on a joint motion for the preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional certification of settlement classes, and class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the parties’ motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff Valerie Brooks alleges that defendant Pressed Juicery, Inc. violated the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (“ADA”), and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 (“UCRA”), by not maintaining its website in a manner that allowed access to those with visual disabilities, see Compl., ECF No. 1. ///// Ms. Brooks, the representative plaintiff, is a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.