17.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), and  alternatively, (b)(3), on behalf of all blind individuals and individuals with a visual impairment  that substantially limits the major life activity of seeing, in the United States, who have  attempted to enjoy the musical “Hamilton” at Richard Rodgers Theatre.    18.  The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is  impractical and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to  the Court.     19.  There are common questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be  represented in that they all have been and/or are being denied their civil rights to full and equal  access to, and use and enjoyment of, Defendants’ goods, facilities, and services due to the lack of  provision and maintenance of audio description required by law for persons with disabilities.   20.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class.   21.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and  experienced in complex class action litigation, including class actions brought under the  Americans with Disabilities Act.   23.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because questions of law and fact common to Class members predominate over questions  affecting only individual class members, and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   24.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the Class, unless otherwise indicated.  25.  Defendants own or operate the musical “Hamilton”, which is one of the most  successful Broadway musicals. Around 350,000 people have attended the musical “Hamilton” at  Richard Rodgers Theatre.    26.  Despite this strong record of providing entertainment to thousands of Americans,  Defendants fail to provide equivalent services to individuals who are blind or visually-impaired.  Defendants have refused to provide audio description at the venue which shows the musical,  “Hamilton”.    27.  Properly functioning audio description technology provides audio descriptions of  the visual elements of the musical. Such narrative must be provided live for live theatres in order  to be synchronized with the acting on the stage. Theatres deliver audio description to blind  customers through audio description devices. To access audio description, a theatre provides a  blind customer with a small receiver, which the blind customer can connect to his or her own  headphones or headphones that the theatre provides. The headset receiver is battery-operated and  programmed to wirelessly receive the audio description for the specific musical the individual  has bought a ticket to watch.     29.  Although the audio description technology is readily available, Defendants  refused to provide audio description service to customers.    30.  This case arises out of Defendants’ policy and practice of denying blind and  visually-impaired individuals access to its musical showings, through its failures to provide  audio description devices.    31.  Numerous individuals who are blind or visually-impaired enjoy going to live  theatres, and have attempted to access Defendants’ services. These individuals have repeatedly  been unable to fully and equally enjoy the musical, “Hamilton”, in Richard Rodgers theatre  because Defendants fail to provide audio description services. These failures deny these  individuals full and equal access to the musical, “Hamilton”.    32.  Plaintiff LASSER has encountered great difficulty accessing services provided by   Richard Rodgers theatre. In September 2016, Plaintiff contacted the box office of Defendant’s  theatre to inquire about accessibility aids for blind and visually impaired who desire to attend the  musical, “Hamilton.” However, the box office informed Plaintiff that no audio description will  be provided to the blind and visually impaired.         34.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set  forth herein.    35.  Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full  and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  of places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182.   36.  Defendants own, operate, lease, manage and produce the musical, “Hamilton” at  Richard Rodgers Theatre, which is a place of public accommodation within the statutory  definition. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(C).   37.  Title III prohibits entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of public  accommodation from denying an individual or class of individuals with disabilities the  opportunity to participate or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or  accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(a).   38.  Title III prohibits entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of public  accommodation from affording an individual or class of individuals with disabilities the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or  accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(b).   40.  Under Title III, entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of public  accommodation must take the steps necessary to ensure that no individuals with disabilities are  excluded, denied services, or otherwise treated differently than others because of the absence of  auxiliary aids and services, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the services provided or  create an undue burden. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.303.   41.  Audio description is an auxiliary aid under Title III of the ADA.  Defendants have  further violated Title III by failing to take the steps necessary to ensure that blind and visually- impaired persons are not excluded from its services because of the absence of audio description.   42.  It is a violation of Title III for entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places  of public accommodation to fail to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or  procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the  modification would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).   43.  By failing to modify practices, policies, and procedures to ensure that audio  description service is provided, Defendants are violating Title III.    44.  The actions of Defendants were and are in violation of the Americans with  Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder. Many  blind and visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff, have been and continue to be denied  full and equal access to the musical “Hamilton”. Defendants have failed to take the necessary  steps to provide full and equal access to blind and visually-impaired patrons, and Defendants’  violations of the ADA are ongoing. Unless the Court enjoins Defendants from continuing to  engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully  herein.   47.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and are informed and believe that Defendants deny, that by failing to maintain  and provide audio description equipment and services, Defendants fail to comply with applicable  laws, including but not limited to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§  12181, et seq.   48.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each  of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.  Declaratory Relief   (on Behalf of The Named Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq.)  (on Behalf of the Named Plaintiff and the Class)  