TARGET CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
HAROLD J. McELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
MATTHEW I. KREEGER (CA SBN 153793)
KRISTINA PASZEK (CA SBN 226351)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
Attorneys for Defendant
TARGET CORPORATION
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of their members and all others similarly situated, BRUCE F. SEXTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, MELISSA WILLIAMSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and JAMES P. MARKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION
Defendant.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case No. C06-01802 MHP
TARGET CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel
Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) answers the Second Amended Complaint
(“Complaint”) on file in this action as follows:
1.    Target denies the averments contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2.    The averments contained in paragraph 2 assert legal conclusions to which no 5 response is required.
3.    The averments contained in paragraph 3 assert legal conclusions to which no 7 response is required.
4.    The averments contained in paragraph 4 assert legal conclusions to which no 9 response is required.
5.    The averments contained in paragraph 5 assert legal conclusions to which no 11 response is required.
6.    Answering paragraph 6, Target admits that it conducts business, and operates retail stores, in the State of California. Except as expressly admitted, Target denies the averments contained in paragraph 6, and further denies the averments contained in this paragraph to the extent they state legal conclusions for which no response is required.
7.    Target is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the averments relating to the residency or existence of the various plaintiffs. Except as expressly admitted, Target denies the averments contained in paragraph 7.
8.    Target is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the 20 averments of paragraph 8.
9.    Target is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the 22 averments of paragraph 9.
10.    Target denies that Plaintiff Sexton “has been denied the full use and enjoyment of facilities, goods and services of Target.com” as averred in paragraph 10. Target is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining averments of paragraph 10.
11.    Target denies that Plaintiff Williamson “has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Target.com, as well as to the facilities, goods and services of Target’s retail stores, as a result of accessibility barriers on Target.com” as averred in paragraph 11. Target denies that “the inaccessibility of Target.com has deterred her from shopping at Target stores” as averred in paragraph 11. Target denies the averments contained in this paragraph to the extent they state legal conclusions for which no response is required. Target is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining averments of paragraph 11.
12.    Target denies that Plaintiff Marks “has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Target.com, as well as to the facilities, goods and services of Target’s retail stores, as a result of accessibility barriers on Target.com” as averred in paragraph 12. Target denies that Plaintiff was denied the use of the Target Club health club facilities and services, the exercise equipment, its hot tubs & spas, the pool, and any other features available to any other Target Club member. Target denies that “the inaccessibility of Target.com has deterred him from shopping at Target stores, and has forced him to have to pay an aide to accompany him when he does shop at Target stores” as averred in paragraph 12. Target denies the averments contained in this paragraph to the extent they state legal conclusions for which no response is required. Target is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining averments of paragraph 12.