Xinyue Hippe v. Me Too LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants Xinyue Hippe’s motion for default judgment against Me Too LLC on her claim that its website was inaccessible to legally blind users in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court finds that the defaulted allegations establish liability and orders a permanent injunction requiring Me Too to bring its website into compliance with the ADA within 180 days. The court denies the requested declaratory relief and declines to reserve jurisdiction over attorneys’ fees and costs.

Holdings

1. A default judgment establishes liability on each cause of action alleged in the complaint when the complaint's well-pleaded liability allegations establish the legal claim; allegations concerning damages are not ordinarily deemed admitted.
2. The complaint established Me Too LLC's liability under Title III because Hippe alleged that she was disabled, Me Too owned or operated a place of public accommodation, and Me Too discriminated against her by maintaining a website incompatible with her accessibility tools.
3. Hippe was entitled to a permanent injunction requiring Me Too LLC to bring its website into compliance with the ADA within 180 days.
4. The injunction must require Me Too to bring its website into compliance with the ADA but need not specify every functionality or technical step proposed by Hippe.
5. Hippe was not entitled to a declaration that Me Too's website violated Title III because the requested declaration would establish only past discrimination and her briefing did not justify declaratory relief.
6. The court did not reserve jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees and costs because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides the applicable procedure, which Hippe may use.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the well-pleaded allegations established Me Too LLC's liability under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2. Whether Hippe was entitled to permanent injunctive relief requiring Me Too LLC to bring its website into compliance with the ADA.
3. Whether the court should grant Hippe's request for additional specific injunctive relief and a declaration that Me Too's website violated Title III.
4. Whether the court should reserve jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees and costs.

Disposition

other