1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

GEORGE ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a 

BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Comes now GEORGE ROBINSON (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others 

similarly situated, hereby sues MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and 

alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, GEORGE ROBINSON, brings this action individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated against Defendant, MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., (“Defendant”), alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (hereinafter, “ADA”). 

2. Plaintiff is a blind individual. He brings this civil rights class action against 

Defendant for offering and maintaining an internet website that is not fully accessible and 

independently usable by visually impaired individuals.

3. Plaintiff ROBINSON has visited Defendant’s website (www.banfield.com) (the 

“Website”). 

4. Defendant offers consumer pet care services that offers goods and services that 

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 1 of 11
2

are inaccessible to the public and has a variety of brick and mortar locations throughout the 

United States, to include officesin Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant’s website is offered 

as a tool that is heavily integrated with Defendant’s brick and mortar locations, to among other 

things, receive complimentary coupons, schedule appointments, access an online account for 

his pet, access online price estimates based on his location, and access to special offers 

otherwise available to people without a visual disability. 

5. As a result, the website must interact and be heavily integrated with Defendant’s 

services, brick and mortar location, and in doing so must comply with the ADA, which means it

must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities and may not deny full and equal 

enjoyment of services afforded to the general public.

6. Blind and visually impaired consumers use screen reading software or other 

assistive technologies in order to access website content. Defendant’s website, however, contains

digital barriers, limiting the ability of blind and visually impaired consumers to access their 

content. 

7. Defendant’s website does not properly interact with screen reader software in a 

manner that will allow the blind and visually impaired to enjoy the website, nor does the site 

provide other means to accommodate the blind and visually impaired. As a result, the Plaintiff

encountered digital barriers that interfered with his full enjoyment of Defendant’s brick and mortar 

locations. Plaintiff ROBINSON has visited Defendant’s website in the past in conjunction with 

Plaintiff’s visit to Defendant brick and mortar locations for pet care visits for his trained guide dog, 

Gunther. However, unless Defendant is required to eliminate the access barriers at issue, and 

required to change its policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on Defendant’s website, 

Plaintiff will continue to be denied full and equal access to the website and related brick and mortar

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 2 of 11
3

locations as described, and will be deterred from fully using Defendant’s website in conjunction 

with its physical location.

8. The ADA expressly contemplates the type of injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks 

in this action. The ADA provides, in part:

[i]n the case of violations of . . . this title, injunctive relief shall 

include an order to alter facilities to make such facilities readily 

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities . . . Where 

appropriate, injunctive relief shall also include requiring the ... 

modification of a policy ...

42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).

9. Therefore, on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff seeks a 

declaration that Defendant’s website violates federal law as described and an injunction requiring 

Defendant to modify its website, to include third party vendors, so that it is fully accessible to, and 

independently usable by blind or visually impaired individuals. Plaintiff further requests that the 

Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for a period to be determined to ensure that Defendant comes

into compliance with the requirements of the ADA and to ensure that Defendant has adopted and 

is following an institutional policy that will, in fact, cause Defendant’s website to remain in 

compliance with the law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 

U.S.C. § 12188.

11. Plaintiff’s claims arose in this judicial district and Defendant does substantial

business in this judicial district. 

12. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and 42 

U.S.C. § 12117(a) in that this is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the acts and 

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 3 of 11
4

omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff, GEORGE ROBINSON, is and, at all times relevant hereto, resided in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. Plaintiff, GEORGE ROBINSON, is and, at all times relevant hereto, 

has been legally blind and is therefore a member of a protected class under the ADA.

14. Defendant, MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., is a 

Foreign profit Corporation, with its principal place in Vancouver, Washington. Defendant, 

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., either directly or through its subsidiaries 

and/or partners and affiliates, owns, operates and/or maintains multiple brick and mortar pet care

locations throughout the state of Florida and in Miami-Dade County. Defendant, MEDICAL 

MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., also owns, operates, and maintains its integrated

website, which offers continuous services to the public, twenty-four (24) hours a day and seven 

days a week. 

15. Defendant, MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. does 

business under the fictitious name, Banfield Pet Hospital. 

16. The pet services locations, owned by Defendant, MEDICAL MANAGEMENT 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., and the accompanying integrated website offers and services including 

receiving complimentary coupons, scheduling appointments, accessing an online account for pets, 

accessing online price estimates based on location, and access to special offers otherwise available 

to people without a visual disability., within South Florida. The retail locations and website work 

collectively and are public accommodations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F).

FACTS

17. Defendant either owns, operates and/or controls its website, www.banfield.com, 

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 4 of 11
5

which offers services related to and heavily integrated with its brick and mortar retail locations

and which offers such services such as receiving complimentary coupons, scheduling 

appointments, access to an online account for your pet, access to price estimates based on location,

and access to special offers otherwise available to people without a visual disability.

18. Blind and visually impaired individuals may access websites by using keyboards 

in conjunction with screen reader software that converts text to audio. Screen reader software 

provides the primary method by which a visually impaired person may independently use the 

Internet. Unless the websites are designed to be accessed with screen reader software, visually 

impaired individuals are unable to fully access websites and the information, products, and service 

available through the sites.

19. The international website standards organization, W3C, has published WCAG 

2.0 AA (Version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). WCAG 2.0 AA provides 

widely accepted guidelines for making websites accessible to individuals with disabilities and 

compatible with screen reader software. These guidelines have been endorsed by the United States 

Department of Justice and numerous federal courts.

20. Plaintiff is a prospective customer who is interested in the good and services offered

by Defendant at its brick and mortar retail locations. 

21. Plaintiff uses screen reader software in order to access a website's content. 

However, despite several attempts, Defendant’s website did not integrate with Plaintiff's software, 

nor was there any function within the website to permit access for visually impaired individuals 

through other means. Plaintiff was denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities and services 

available on Defendant’s website as a result of access barriers on the website in conjunction with 

Plaintiff’s use and patronage of Defendant’s brick and mortar retail locations in Miami-Dade 

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 5 of 11
6

County.

22. Defendant’s website does not meet the WCAG 2.0 AA level of accessibility.

23. By failing to adequately design and program its website to accurately and 

sufficiently integrate with screen reader software, Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff 

and others with visual impairments on the basis of a disability by denying them full and equal 

enjoyment of the website, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) and C.F.R. § 36.201.

24. As a result of Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiff was unable to use Defendant’s 

website and suffered an injury in fact including loss of dignity, mental anguish and other tangible 

injuries. Moreover, the digital barriers on Defendant’s website, Plaintiff is denied to participate in 

or benefit from the goods, services and accommodations afforded to the public. 

25. The barriers at the website have caused a denial of Plaintiff s full and equal 

access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff from attempting to use Defendant’s 

website itself, and in conjunction with visiting its brick and mortar campus location.

26. If Defendant’s website was accessible, Plaintiff could independently receive 

complimentary coupons, schedule appointments, access an online account for his pet, access online 

price estimates based on his location, and access to special offers otherwise available to people 

without a visual disability.

27. Although Defendant may have centralized policies regarding the maintenance 

and operation of its website, Defendant has never had a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated 

to make its website fully accessible to, and independently usable by people with visual 

impairments.

28. Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually impaired individuals will 

continue to be unable to independently use Defendant’s website in violation of their rights under 

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 6 of 11
7

the ADA.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

29. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf 

of all legally blind individuals who have attempted, or will attempt, to access Defendant’s website 

using screen reader software.

30. Numerous Class: The class described above is so numerous that joinder of all 

individual members in one action would be impracticable. The disposition of the individual claims 

of the respective class members through this class action will benefit both the parties and this 

Court.

31. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the 

class. The claims of the Plaintiff and members of the class are based on the same legal theories 

and arise from the same unlawful conduct.

32. Common Questions of Fact and Law: There is a well-defined community of 

interest and common questions of fact and law affecting members of the class 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, Defendant’s facilities and/or services due to Defendant’s failure to make its website 

fully accessible and independently usable as above described.

33. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class 

because his interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiff will 

fairly, adequately, and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the members of the class

and has no interests antagonistic to the members of the class. Plaintiff has retained counsel 

who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation, generally, and 

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 7 of 11
8

who possess specific expertise in the context of class litigation under the ADA.

34. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because 

Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making 

appropriate both declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole.

SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS

Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

35. The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are incorporated by 

reference.

36. Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides: “No 

individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of a disability in the full and equal enjoyment 

the goods, 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

37. Defendant’s brick and mortar retail locations and accompanying Website are 

public accommodations within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F). 

38. Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to 

deny individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A)(1).

39. Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to 

deny individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations, which is equal to the opportunities 

afforded to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii').

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 8 of 11
9

40. Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination also 

includes, among other things:

a failure 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 entity 

can demonstrate that making such modifications would 

fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages or accommodations; and a failure to take such 

steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a 

disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise 

treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of 

auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that 

taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of good, 

service, facility, privilege, advantage or accommodation being 

offered or would result in an undue burden

42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii–iii); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(a).

41. Title III requires that "[a] public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary 

aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with 

disabilities." 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1). The regulation sets forth numerous examples of "auxiliary 

aids and services," including "...accessible electronic and information technology; or other 

effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to individuals who are blind or 

have low vision." 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b).

42. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the 

regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is blind and has a disability that substantially 

limits the major life activity of seeing, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A) and (2)(A), 

has been denied full and equal access to Defendant’s website. Plaintiff has not been afforded the 

services, privileges and advantages that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and/or 

have been provided services, privileges and advantages that are inferior to those provided to nonCase 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 9 of 11
10

disabled persons. These violations are ongoing as Defendant has failed to make any prompt and 

equitable changes to its website and policies in order to remedy its discriminatory conduct.

43. Pursuant to the ADA and the remedies, procedures and rights set forth and 

incorporated therein, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

requests relief as set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the members of the class, prays for:

a. A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant is in violation 

of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA, described above, and the relevant 

implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably 

calculated to ensure that its website was fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind 

individuals;

b. A permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2), 29 U.S.C.A. § 794a, 28 CFR 

§ 36.504 (a), and 29 U.S.C.A. § 794a which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring 

its website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and both statutes' 

implementing regulations, so that its website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, 

blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to 

be determined to ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that 

will in fact cause Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law;

c. An Order certifying the class proposed by Plaintiff, and naming Plaintiff as class 

representatives and appointing his counsel as class counsel;

d. Payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this lawsuit;

e. Payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, 29 U.S.C.A. § 794a, 

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 10 of 11
11

and 28 CFR § 36.505; and,

f. Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate.

Dated: April 29, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

 GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

 4937 S.W. 74th Court

 Miami, FL 33155

 Telephone: (305) 553-3464

 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031

 Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

Secondary E-Mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com

bvirues@lawgmp.com

By: ___/s/_Anthony J. Perez________

 ANTHONY J. PEREZ

 Florida Bar No.: 535451

Case 1:20-cv-21785-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2020 Page 11 of 11