1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case Number:__________________-CIV-_____________________

RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

FENDI NORTH AMERICA INC,

D/b/a Fendi,

Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Raymond T. Mahlberg (“Plaintiff “or “Mahlberg”), by and 

through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Permanent Injunctive Relief pursuant to 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§s 12181-12189 

(“ADA”), 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202 as well as 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. Plaintiff state as 

follows:

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, as 

provided in 28 U.S.C. §1331 and the provisions of the ADA. 

2. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person (disabled) who requires 

assistance through screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff 

uses the term “blind” or “visually impaired” as legally blind. Disable as defined by ADA and 

Amendment acts of 2008, 42 USC §12101 (ADAAA). 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 1 of 20
2

3. In the statutory text, Congress determined that "individuals with disabilities 

continually encounter various forms of discrimination," including "communication barriers". 42 

U.S.C. § 12182(a).

4. Defendant’s adjunct website https://www.fendi.com/us/ and specifically the Florida

website (the “Website” or “Defendant’s website”) is not fully or equally accessible to blind or 

visually impaired consumers in violation of the “ADA.” As a result, Plaintiff seeks a permanent

injunction to cause a change in FENDI NORTH AMERICA INC (“Defendant” or “FENDI”) 

policies, practices and procedures so that Defendant’s website will become, and remain, 

accessible to blind. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including, but not 

limited to, court costs and expert fees, pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§s 12181-12189 (“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a). See 

also 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 as well as ADA 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. 

5. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, identities, and capacities of all responsible 

parties (defendants) being sued. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the 

true names and capacities if and when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 

thereupon alleges, that each Defendant sued is legally responsible in some manner for the 

events and happenings alleged herein and that each of Defendant sued here proximately caused 

injuries and damages to Plaintiff as set forth below.

6. Throughout the ADA, "auxiliary aids and services" refers to techniques and devices to 

overcome barriers in communicating with people who have visual and hearing impairments, 

among other things. See 42 U.S.C. 12103(1). 

7. Implementing these provisions, see 42 U.S.C. § 12186(b), the Attorney General's Title 

III regulations require public accommodations to "furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 2 of 20
3

services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities." 

28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1). The regulations specifically list "screen reader software," 

"magnification software," and "accessible electronic and information technology" as among 

the auxiliary aids that the statute requires. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(2).

8. Plaintiff is sui juris, and he is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments 

Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (“ADAAA”). Defendant’s failure to design, construct, 

maintain, and operate its website https://www.fendi.com/us/ to be fully and equally accessible to 

and independently usable by Plaintiff, constitutes in Defendants’ denial of full and equal access 

to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby in conjunction 

with its physical location(s), resulting in a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

9. Defendant’s website is https://www.fendi.com/us/ Defendant owns and operates the 

Website and several brick-mortar FENDI stores that are located in Florida. 

10. Plaintiff Raymond T. Mahlberg, a blind veteran of the U.S. military, residing in 

Orlando, Florida brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act in Federal Court. 

11. Blind and visually impaired citizens must use screen reading software1 or other 

assistive technologies in order to access website content. 

12. Plaintiff cannot use his computer and mobile device browser without the assistance 

of appropriate and available screen reader software to understand websites.

13. Defendant’s website contains digital source code barriers where screen-readers for 

the blind do not work. 

																																																																		 1 “screen	reader”	is	a	software	application	that	enables	people	with	severe	visual	impairments	to	use	a	computer.	

Screen	 readers	 work	 closely	 with	 the computer's	 Operating	 System	 (OS)	 to	 provide	 information	 about	 icons,	

menus,	dialogue	boxes,	files	and	folders.

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 3 of 20
4

14. This case arises out of the fact that Defendant FENDI has operated its business in a 

manner and way that effectively excludes individuals who are visually impaired from access to 

Defendants’ https://www.fendi.com/us/ website based upon Defendant’s failure to provide 

auxiliary aids and services for effective communications. 

15. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

16. Plaintiff, a legally blind person, is impeded to access and communicate with 

Defendant effectively and timely such that allowing access to Defendants’ various business 

locations; as such impediment as rendered Defendants’ physical places of accommodation not 

fully accessible to the visually impaired.

17. Plaintiff has attempted to access Defendant’s Website in the past and intends to 

continue to attempt to access Defendant’s Website https://www.fendi.com/us/.

18. 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

https://www.fendi.com/us/, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full access to FENDI’s website. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. Plaintiff resides in Orlando, Florida and regularly travels to Miami to visit his friends

and family where they go shopping. Defendant has stores in the State of Florida, including 

stores in Miami-Dade County. Defendant conducts and continues to conduct a substantial and 

significant amount of business in this District.

20. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, in the Southern District of Florida

where defendant resides and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Personal jurisdiction exists when the Defendant purposefully availed itself of the conducting 

activities within the forum State.

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 4 of 20
5

21. Plaintiff’s claims asserted herein arose in this judicial district.

22. Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, FL 32817. Plaintiff was told that there is a FENDI’s

store in his area.

23. This is an action injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”), 28 C.F.R. § 36.201 and to prevent 

discrimination which includes equal access and effective communications with Defendant’s 

business. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 

24. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Defendant has been and 

is committing the acts or omissions alleged herein in the Southern District of Florida that caused 

injury, and violated rights prescribed by the ADA to Plaintiff. A substantial part of the acts and 

omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Southern District of Florida. 

Specifically, on several separate occasions, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment 

of the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s website in Florida. The access barriers 

Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s website have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal 

access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing 

Defendant’s website. Plaintiff would like to become Defendant’s patron and access the 

Defendant’s website in the near future but the barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s 

website have impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered at 

Defendant’s brick-and mortar stores. Defendant FENDI NORTH AMERICA INC is authorized 

to conduct, and is conducting, business within the State of Florida and within the jurisdiction of 

this court.

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 5 of 20
6

THE PARTIES

25. Plaintiff Mahlberg, is a resident of the State of Florida. Plaintiff resides in Orlando. 

Mahlberg is legally blind, and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Whereby, he has a 

disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), the regulations implementing the 

ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq. and in 42 U.S.C. 3602, §802(h). Plaintiff suffered an 

assault to the back of his head in 2004 which caused damage and atrophy of the optic nerve, and 

as a consequence, is legally blind. Plaintiff is a legally blind individual who has a physical 

impairment that substantially limits the major life activity of seeing. Accordingly, he has a 

disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Plaintiff is a 

qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), 29 U.S. Code 

§ 794 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 

26. Plaintiff cannot use the computer without the assistance of a screen reader software.

Mahlberg is a proficient user of the JAWS and NVDA screen-reader to access the internet, 

Voiceover for Apple iPhone. Screen-reader is the most popular audio-description software for 

blind individuals to browse the internet. For screen-reading software to work, the information on 

a website must be capable of being rendered into text. Usually, this means that graphics and 

embedded hyperlinks must include alternative text (known as "alt-text")—a description of the 

image that appears when a cursor floats over it or screen-reading software detects it. 

27. FENDI NORTH AMERICA INC is a Foreign Profit Corporation. Defendant is the 

owner and operator of a chain of stores under the brand name FENDI and his products are 

distributed to affiliated and authorized retailers.

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 6 of 20
7

28. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant FENDI NORTH 

AMERICA INC owns, operates, and/or manages the day-to-day affairs and stores of FENDI

stores which are operating within Miami and Orlando in the State of Florida.

29. Plaintiff believes, and thereon alleges, that defendant FENDI’s corporate affiliates 

and/or related entities, actively engaged in the sale of design clothing in various states 

throughout the country, including Florida. 

30. Plaintiff is further informed that said companies are organized and existing under, and 

by virtue of, the laws of the state of New York. Defendant’s headquarters and principal corporate 

offices located in New York. Said Defendant entities will hereinafter collectively be referred to 

as “FENDI” “the Defendant Company” or, where appropriate, “Defendant.”

FACTS

31. Defendant is defined as a “Place of Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title 

III because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “[A] bakery, grocery store, 

clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales establishment,” 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(5). 

32. Each of Defendant FENDI’s stores are open to the public and each is a Place of 

Public Accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA and its implementing 

regulation as “[A] ... other sales establishment,” as defined by 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E); §12182, 

and 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

33. FENDI’s stores offer for sale to the general public men and women clothing.

34. Defendant has control over its website content, design and source-code, and/or

operates his web pages, including image and data content. Defendant owns and operate the 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 7 of 20
8

domain name https://www.fendi.com/us/ that is configured for use by mobile devices such as 

smartphones, as well as regular computer laptops and desktops to access Defendant’s website.

35. One of the functions of Defendant’s e-commerce tool (available in computer version

or mobile browsing) is to provide the public information on the various locations of Defendant’s 

stores that sell merchandise. The other function of the website is to sell Defendant’s 

merchandise. 

36. Defendant’s Website is offered by Defendant as a way for the public to communicate 

with FENDI clothing merchandise. Defendant’s e-commerce tool also permits the public to 

register and create an account allows the general public to order and purchase men clothing, 

provides information about its products, and (among other things) provides: customer service, 

locate stores, buy men fashion and gift card. 

37. The Website is an integral part of the goods and services offered by Defendant’s 

store, because website and physical stores are heavily integrated, since the website allows the 

public the ability to locate Defendant’s stores, retail locations and sells merchandise.

38. The website is an extension of defendant’s physical stores. By this nexus, between 

the store and the Website is characterized as a Place of Public Accommodation pursuant to Title 

III, 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E) of the ADA. 

40. Plaintiff is a customer of FENDI brand merchandise since he owns a FENDI and his 

intent to continue buying fashion clothing. Plaintiff frequently buys fashion clothing, and 

through his inquiries he learned there are some FENDI’s stores in his area. 

41. As a result of Plaintiff being legally blind, before he embarks on any venture from 

his home, he studies the location where he is seeking to patronize through using the internet. In 

the case of Plaintiff’s investigation of FENDI’s store locations, Plaintiff went to Defendant’s 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 8 of 20
9

website to learn (1) how to navigate to and from FENDI’s store locations open during Covid-19 

in his area; (2) the designs of FENDI’s men clothing; (3) times and hours of operation FENDI’s

stores in his area, so he can arrange transportation with the intent of purchasing FENDI’s

merchandise; (4) purchase of exclusive online deals; (5) register online (create an account); (6)

read the privacy policy, Plaintiff attempted to locate an “Accessibility Notice” on Defendant’s 

computer website which would direct him to a webpage with contact information for disabled 

individuals who have questions, concerns, or who are having difficulties communicating with the 

business. However, Plaintiff was unable to do so because no such link or notice was provided on 

Defendant’s website. 

42. Like most consumers, Plaintiff accesses numerous websites at a time to compare 

features, models, quality and prices.

43. During Plaintiff’s several visits to the website using JAWS and NVDA (computer)

and Voiceover (cell-phone browsing) occurring in March 25, 2020 and the last in August 12, 

2020, the plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the plaintiff full and equal 

access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; 

and that denied the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the 

Website, as well as to the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s locations in South 

Florida, specially near his home.

44. Plaintiff was impeded to patronize FENDI’s stores by Plaintiff being unable to learn 

about FENDI location addresses, hours, men clothing, new arrivals, and the ability to create an 

online account, read the Return and Privacy Policy, among other things readily available to 

sighted individuals. 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 9 of 20
10

45. Plaintiff called Defendant’s store to inquire about new arrivals of men clothing, as 

well to find the location of stores near his home. However, Defendant’s representative failed to 

fully assist Plaintiff and referred him to its Website. 

46. Following communications with Defendant’s representative, Plaintiff attempted to 

utilize Defendant’s Website as instructed by Defendant’s representative. 

47. Defendant’s Website was inaccessible, so Plaintiff could not (among other things):

a. Find out about FENDI men fashion clothing available online or at the store;

b. Locate FENDI’s stores near Plaintiff’s home;

c. Learn about buying FENDI’s men fashion clothing, since Plaintiff 

appreciates fashion clothing and purchases designer clothing on a regular basis;

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT

48. The failure to access the information needed precluded Plaintiff’s ability to patronize 

FENDI’s stores because, as a blind individual, Plaintiff needs to plan his outings out in detail in 

order to have the proper financing for a venture, and insure that he arrives at a given location. 

49. Title III provides that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of 

disability” in “any Place of Public Accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). As defined in Title 

III, the term “public accommodation” includes a “store and sales establishment” Id. § 

12181(7)(E). Defendant FENDI NORTH AMERICA INC owns and operates stores, FENDI.

50. Technology evolves, in these days, consumers are doing most of their shopping 

online. Defendant’s provision of an e-commerce website is an essential part of the services 

offered and is no different than the customer service to the public as part of FENDI’s stores 

services, privileges and benefit to the public. 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 10 of 20
11

51. Title III ADA Part 36 regulation was amended to integrate section 36.303 Auxiliary 

Aids and Services “A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services 

where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.”

52. By this nexus, the website https://www.fendi.com/us/ is characterized as an 

intangible service, privilege and advantage provided by FENDI a Place of Public 

Accommodation (FENDI’s stores) as defined under the ADA, and thus its website is an 

extension of FENDI services, privileges and advantages made available to the general public by 

Defendant through its retail brick and mortar stores.

53. Defendant’s Website is not designed with consideration for WCAG, Accessible Rich 

Internet Applications (ARIA) software language and Universal design2. This means that images 

and embedded hyperlinks must include alternative description text (known as "alt-text") a 

description of the image that appears when a cursor floats over it or screen-reading software 

detects it. The World Wide Web Consortium (the principal standards-setting body for the web) 

has issued a set of "Web Content Accessibility Guide-lines" (WCAG) to assist developers in 

making their websites accessible to blind people and other individuals with disabilities.

54. Plaintiff’s expectation of participating in FENDI’s website, services and privileges 

was eliminated since he could not access Defendant’s https://www.fendi.com/us/ website at all to 

avail himself of the latest services which Defendant offers to the public. 

55. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s website have caused a 

denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a 

regular basis from accessing Defendant’s website https://www.fendi.com/us/. 

																																																																		 2

Following	universal	design principles	in	creating	a	website provides	access	to	all	users	regardless	of	their	abilities,	

their	disabilities,	or the	limitations	of	 their	equipment	and	software.	Washington	University.	 “Universal	design	is	

the	design	of	products	and	environments	to	be	usable	by	all	people,	to	the	greatest	extent	possible,	without	the	

need	for	adaption	or	specialized	design.”	Kalbag, Laura	(2017).

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 11 of 20
12

56. Plaintiff would like to become Defendant’s patron and access the Defendant’s 

website in the near future but the barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s 

https://www.fendi.com/us/ website has impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods 

and services offered at Defendant’s brick-and mortar stores.

57. The fact that Plaintiff could not access the Defendant’s Website and could not 

comprehend its contained therein, left Plaintiff excluded from accessing FENDI’s stores, goods 

and services available from Defendant and further left him with the feeling of segregation, 

rejection, isolation, and unable to participate in his own business affairs (such as in this case 

purchasing clothing) in a manner equal to that afforded to others who are not similarly disabled. 

58. Plaintiff’s inability to fully use Defendant’s Website therein has hindered, impeded 

and inhibited Plaintiff’s access to Defendant’s physical store locations. Plaintiff has suffered as a 

result and has suffered particularized harm and an injury in fact.

59. Plaintiff cannot make proper arrangements for transportation of himself to the 

FENDI’s store locations without the ability to know in advance the FENDI’s merchandise, goods

and services which service is available online through Defendant’s Website. Plaintiff also faces a 

great degree of uncertainty of how to physically travel to Defendant FENDI’s store location.

Plaintiff is effectively denied the ability to physically travel to Defendant FENDI’s store. 

60. Plaintiff has a concrete plan to purchase FENDI’s brand merchandise when he is 

treated like other members of the public. Consequently, the Plaintiff is unable to determine the 

cost of Defendant’s goods and services, including becoming informed about the FENDI’s brand 

merchandise available for purchase. 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 12 of 20
13

61. By denying Plaintiff the opportunity to comprehend FENDI’s website therein due to 

Plaintiff’s disability (visual impairment), Defendant has denied Plaintiff the opportunity to 

participate in or benefit from Defendant’s goods and services as afforded to the public. 

62. Plaintiff will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s omissions, 

policies, and practices set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. 

63. On information and belief, Defendant has not offered any form of website in an 

accessible format for blind or visually impaired individuals. 

64. Thus, Defendant has not provided full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided at its stores and authorized retailers.

65. All Public Accommodations must insure that their Places of Public Accommodation 

provide Effective Communication for all members of the general public, including individuals 

with disabilities.

66. On information and belief, Defendant is aware of the common access barriers and 

barriers to effective communication within its Website therein which prevent individuals with 

disabilities who are visually impaired from the means to comprehend the information presented 

therein. 

67. Defendant and alike retailers are fully aware of need to provide full access to all 

visitors to its Website as Department of Justice published several communications stating that 

the website is an auxiliary-aid of the physical stores and must be accessible. (September 25, 2018 

letter from Assistant Attorney General) and Title III ADA 28 C.F.R. § 36.303.

68. Binding case law increasingly recognize that private entities are providing goods and 

services to the public through the websites that operate as “Places of Public Accommodation”

under Title III. 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 13 of 20
14

69. A person who cannot see, like the Plaintiff in this case, cannot go to Defendant’s 

website and avail themselves of the same privileges. Thus, the Plaintiff has suffered 

discrimination due to Defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s 

disability. 

70. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs 

alleged hereinabove and this suit for injunctive relief is his only means to secure adequate 

redress from Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory practices. 

71. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations. Enforcement of the rights of Plaintiff is right and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 

2202. 

72. The Website is also a Place of Public Accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) as the public can purchase FENDI’s merchandise online through the Website 

(which meets the definition of “sales establishment‟). 

73. The Department of Justice has provided useful guidance regarding website 

accessibility under the ADA, and the binding and persuasive case law in this district has applied 

the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 or 2.1 to determine accessibility. 

74. Types of website source-code programming errors include (but are not limited to)

source-code errors which are easily identifiable and are prone to making the website

inaccessible, that create empty headings and text fields that create confusion for a user that rely 

on the “TAB” key to navigate a web page. 

75. A sampling review of just part of it revealed that the Website is not functional for 

users who are visually impaired. The Website contains several types of errors, easily identifiable 

and correctable, which occur throughout the Website such as:

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 14 of 20
15

a. Each a element must contain text or an img with an alt attribute.. WCAG 2.0 F89.

b. The tab order does not follow logical sequences on the page. WCAG 2.0 F44.

c. img elements must have an accessible name.. WCAG 2.0 A F65.

d. Link uses general text like 'Click Here' with no surrounding text explaining link 

purpose. WCAG 2.0 F63.

e. Duplicate id - the same ID is used on more than one element. WCAG 2.0 A 4.1.1

74. More violations may be present on webpages of the Website, and they will be 

determined and proven through the discovery process and expert audit. 

75. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA is right and just pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Title III ADA Subpart E Section 36.501.

76. Plaintiff has retained the law office of Acacia Barros, Esq. and has agreed to pay a 

reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of this cause, including costs and expenses 

incurred. Plaintiff is entitled to have reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid by 

Defendant FENDI.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

77. Part 36 of Title 28 of the C.F.R. was designed and is implemented to effectuate 

subtitle A of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by 

Public Accommodations and requires Places of Public Accommodation to be designed, 

constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by Part 36

Regulation. 

78. Defendant’s Website has not been designed to interface with the widely and readily 

available technologies that can be used to ensure effective communication.

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 15 of 20
16

79. As delineated above and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), Defendant is a Public 

Accommodation under the ADA because it owns and/or operates the https://www.fendi.com/us/

website which is defined within §12181(7)(E), and is subject to the ADA.

80. In addition, Defendant’s representatives within its store locations have referred 

customers to Defendant’s Website. By Defendant’s representatives referring the public/visually 

impaired individuals to its Website for basic information needed to shop at a FENDI store, 

instead of providing such information at the physical store locations, the Website has been 

rendered an integral part of Defendant’s physical store locations. Thus, the failure of that 

Website contained therein to be accessible to visually impaired individuals impedes visually 

impaired individuals (such as Plaintiff) from access to Defendant’s physical store locations.

81. The ADA applies to the Defendant’s Website, as the Website is a Place of Public 

Accommodation for the following reasons: (1) the statutory construction of the ADA 

demonstrates its applicability is not limited to physical “brick and mortar” locations; (2) 

Congress‟ intent was for the ADA to be responsive to changes in technology; and (3) the 

Department of Justice has interpreted the ADA to apply to websites. 

82. No notice is required because under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of 

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

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded 

to other individuals.

83. Unlawful discrimination includes “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, 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 16 of 20
17

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the 

nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(II). 

84. Unlawful discrimination also includes “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 the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or 

would result in an undue burden.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III).

85. Defendant is in violation of the ADA by creating barriers for individuals with 

disabilities who are visually impaired and who require the assistance of interface with screen 

reader software to comprehend and access websites. These violations are ongoing.

86. As a result of the inadequate development and administration of Defendant’s 

Website, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12133 and §12188, also 

28 C.F.R. §36.501 to remedy the discrimination.

87. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188, this Court is vested with the authority to grant 

Plaintiff Mahlberg injunctive relief; including an order to:

a) Require Defendant take the necessary steps to make the Website

readily accessible to and usable by visually impaired users, and during that time 

period prior to the https://www.fendi.com/us/ website’s being readily accessible, 

to provide a temporary alternative method for individuals with visual 

impairments to access the information available on the Website until such time 

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 17 of 20
18

that the requisite modifications are made. Title III American with Disabilities 

Act Part 36 Regulation. 

b) Require Defendant to provide periodic maintenance of the accessible 

website thru the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with visual 

impairments will be able to always receive effectively communication with the 

Website for purposes of viewing and locating FENDI stores and becoming 

informed of and signing up for FENDI merchandise online, and of viewing 

electronic pages provided to the public within Defendant’s Website. 

c) During the time period prior to the Website’s being designed to permit 

individuals with visual impairments to effectively communicate, requiring 

Defendant to provide an alternative method for individuals with visual 

impairments to effectively communicate so they are not impeded from obtaining 

the goods and services made available to the public. Title III ADA Part 36 

Regulation.

88. For all of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG hereby demands judgment 

against Defendant “FENDI NORTH AMERICA INC.” and requests the following injunctive 

relief permanently enjoin Defendant from any practice, policy and/or procedure which will deny 

Plaintiff equal access to, and benefit from Defendant’s services and goods, as well as the Court:

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 18 of 20
19

a. That the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant’s websites

at the commencement of the subject lawsuit is in violation of Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; 

b. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to continually update and maintain their 

computer version of the defendant’s websites to ensure that it remains fully accessible to and 

usable by visually impaired individuals; 

c. That the Court issue an Injunctive relief order directing Defendant to alter their website to 

make it accessible to, and useable by, individuals with disabilities to the full extent required 

by Title III of the ADA; 

d. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize their policies 

and procedures towards persons with disabilities for such reasonable time so as to allow 

Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures; 

e. Further requests the Court to 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; 

f. That the Court enter an award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Title III of the ADA Section 36.505.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions of fact 

the Complaint raises. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all claims so triable.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated this 26th day of August 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 19 of 20
20

/s/Acacia Barros

Attorney for Plaintiff

ACACIA BARROS, P.A.

Acacia Barros, Esq.

FBN: 106277

11120 N. Kendall Dr., Suite 201

Miami, Florida 33176

Tel: 305-639-8381

ab@barroslawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this 26th day of August 2020 that the foregoing document

has been filed using CM/ECF system and will be served via email when

Defendant/Defendant’s counsel enters an appearance.

Case 1:20-cv-23557-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 20 of 20