No. 18-1539

Domino's Pizza, LLC v. Guillermo Robles

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-06-13
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (5) Experienced Counsel
Tags: accessibility ada ada-title-iii americans-with-disabilities-act circuit-split civil-rights digital-accessibility disability-discrimination mobile-app-accessibility mobile-application public-accommodation statutory-interpretation website website-accessibility
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Title III of the ADA requires a website or mobile phone application that offers goods or services to the public to satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides, in relevant part, that “[nJo individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” The question presented is: Whether Title III of the ADA requires a website or mobile phone application that offers goods or services to the public to satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities? (I)

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-28
Reply of petitioner Domino's Pizza, LLC filed. (Distributed)
2019-08-14
Brief of respondent Guillermo Robles in opposition filed.
2019-07-15
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
2019-07-15
Brief amici curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc., et al. filed.
2019-07-15
Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
2019-07-15
Brief amicus curiae of Restaurant Law Center filed.
2019-07-15
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
2019-07-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 14, 2019.
2019-07-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 15, 2019 to August 14, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-06-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 15, 2019)
2019-03-06
Application (18A906) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 14, 2019.
2019-03-04
Application (18A906) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 15, 2019 to June 14, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Cato Institute
Ilya ShapiroCato Institute, Amicus
Ilya ShapiroCato Institute, Amicus
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Gregory George GarreLatham & Watkins LLP, Amicus
Gregory George GarreLatham & Watkins LLP, Amicus
Domino's Pizza, LLC
Lisa Schiavo BlattWilliams & Connolly LLP, Petitioner
Lisa Schiavo BlattWilliams & Connolly LLP, Petitioner
Guillermo Robles
Joseph R. Manning Jr.Manning Law, APC, Respondent
Joseph R. Manning Jr.Manning Law, APC, Respondent
Restaurant Law Center
John Bruce LewisBaker & Hostetler LLP, Amicus
John Bruce LewisBaker & Hostetler LLP, Amicus
Retail Litigation Center, Inc. and National Retail Federation
Pratik Arvind ShahAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Amicus
Pratik Arvind ShahAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Amicus
Washington Legal Foundation
Cory L. AndrewsWashington Legal Foundation, Amicus
Cory L. AndrewsWashington Legal Foundation, Amicus