UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLIQUE 307, LLC 

d/b/a Lionfish restaurant,

Defendant.

/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Windy Lucius (“Plaintiff”) hereby sues Defendant Clique 307, LLC

(“Defendant”), a Florida limited liability company, doing business as Lionfish restaurant for

InjunctiveRelief, attorney’sfees,litigation expenses and costs pursuant to Title III of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (“ADA”), 28 C.F.R. Part 

36, et seq.

1. Venue lies in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 

Local Rule 3.1, in that the original transaction or occurrence giving rise to this cause of action 

occurred in this District.

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, this Court has been given 

original jurisdiction over actions which arise from Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202.

3. Plaintiff is a Florida resident, livesin Miami-Dade County, issui juris, and qualifies 

as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Plaintiff is legally blind and a member 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 1 of 15
2

of a protected class under the ADA, 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 is substantially 

limited in the major life activity of seeing. Plaintiff’s disability is defined in 28 C.F.R. 

§36.105(b)(2).

4. Plaintiff uses the internet and a mobile device to help her navigate a world of goods, 

products and services like the sighted. The internet, websites and mobile applications provide her 

a window into the world that she would not otherwise have. She brings this action against 

Defendant for offering and maintaining a mobile website (software that is intended to run on 

mobile devises such as phones or tablet computers) that is not fully accessible and independently 

usable by visually impaired consumers. Plaintiff utilizes the Apple Screen Reader VoiceOver 

software to read computer materials and/or access and comprehend internet mobile website

information which is specifically designed for the visually impaired.

5. Plaintiff is also an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and 

is a “tester” for the purpose of asserting her civil rights. As such, she monitors mobile websites to 

ensure and determine whether places of public accommodation and/or their mobile websites are in 

compliance with the ADA.

6. Defendant owns and operates a place of public accommodation which is an upscale 

seafood restaurant branded as “Lionfish.” The Lionfish restaurant is located within Palm Beach 

County at 307 East Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33483 and is open to the public. As 

such, it is a Place of Public Accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA 

and its implementing regulation as defined by 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B), §12182, and 28 C.F.R. 

§36.104(2). The Lionfish restaurant is also referenced throughout as “place of public 

accommodation,” “Lionfish,” or “restaurant.”

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 2 of 15
3

7. Defendant is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title III 

because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “[A] restaurant, bar, or other 

establishment serving food or drink,” 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2).

8. Subsequent to the effective date of the ADA, Defendant constructed, or caused to be 

constructed, the https://lionfishdelray.com mobile website (hereinafter “mobile website”) for the 

general public to access on their mobile devices (phones, tablets). This mobile website supports, 

is an extension of, is in conjunction with, is complementary and supplemental to, Defendant’s 

Lionfish restaurant. The mobile website delineates the goods, services, accommodations, 

privileges, benefits and facilities available to patrons at the restaurant’s physical location. 

9. The mobile website is offered by Defendant as a way for the public to become 

familiar with Lionfish menu selections, hours of operation, restaurant location, provides a link to 

reserve a table for dining within the restaurant, allows the public to order Lionfish food for delivery 

to one’s home or for pickup curbside, and provides other information Defendant seeks to 

communicate to the public. The mobile website also offers the public the ability to purchase gift 

cards online for exclusive use at Lionfish restaurant, as well as the ability to the ability to subscribe 

to the restaurant’s “stay connected” notifications, to inquire and book special/private events, and 

links to the Lionfish Blog. The mobile website also links to the Lionfish Twitter, Facebook and 

Instagram pages. By the provision of menu selection, reservation services, delivery and to-go order 

selection, and the ability to purchase Lionfish gift cards online, the mobile website is an integral 

part of the goods and services offered by Defendant. By this nexus, the mobile website is 

characterized as a Place of Public Accommodation to Title III of the ADA1, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

1 Ensuring Web Accessibility for people with disabilities has become a priority for the Department of Justice. The 

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has taken the position that both State and local government websites (Title 

II) and the websites of private entities that are public accommodations (Title III) are covered by the ADA. On March 

18, 2022, the DOJ issued guidance on Web Accessibility, see https://beta.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance. The 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 3 of 15
4

12181(7)(B) & (E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2) and (5).

10. Defendant’s mobile website allows mobile device users to use a mobile platform 

through a connection to Wi-Fi or cellular data so that users can manage their dining choice from 

their mobile device. As such, it has subjected itself to the ADA because its mobile website is 

offered as a tool to promote, advertise and sell its products and services from its brick-and-mortar 

restaurant location, which is a place of public accommodation. As a result, Defendant’s mobile 

website must interact with its restaurant and the public, 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 the goods and services afforded to the general public.2

11. Defendant’s mobile website does not properly interact with the VoiceOver screen 

reader software technology in a manner that allows blind and visually impaired individuals to 

comprehend the mobile website and does not provide other means to accommodate blind and 

visually impaired individuals.

12. Like the seeing community, Plaintiff would like the opportunity to be able to use 

Defendant’s mobile website to comprehend the restaurant menu selections, make reservations to 

dine in the Lionfish restaurant, to order food online for delivery or pickup and to purchase gift 

cards online. 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, Plaintiff will continue to be 

denied full and equal access to the mobile website as described and will be deterred from fully 

guidance states that individuals with disabilities should not be denied equal access to information, and inaccessible 

websites are as excluding as are access barriers to physical locations. DOJ guidance requires that website barriers must 

be identified, prevented, and removed so that all Title II and Title III entities offer websites that are accessible to 

people with disabilities.

2 According to Statista, almost half of web traffic in the United States originated form mobile devices in 2021. 

Therefore, Defendant knew or should have known that potential customers would be using the mobile version of its 

website and provided accessibility for blind users.

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 4 of 15
5

using Defendant’s mobile website.

13. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations on Defendant’s mobile website and 

is aware that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize the mobile website as long as those 

violations exist unless she is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

14. Defendant and alike restaurants are fully aware of the need to provide full access 

to all visitors to its mobile website as such barriers result in discriminatory and unequal treatment 

of individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired and result in punishment and isolation 

of blind and low vision individuals from the rest of society. 

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

alleged herein and this action is her only means to secure adequate redress from Defendant’s 

discriminatory practice.

16. 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. 

17. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the civil rights law office of J. Courtney 

Cunningham, PLLC 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 recover those attorney’s fees, 

costs and expenses from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205 and 28 CFR §36.505.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF TITLE III OF THE ADA

18. The ADA requires that Public Accommodations (and Places of Public 

Accommodation) are required to ensure that communication is effective, which includes the 

provision of auxiliary aids and services for such purpose.

19. According to 28 C.F.R. Section 36.303(b)(1), auxiliary aids and services includes 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 5 of 15
6

“voice, text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems.” 28 C.F.R. Section 

36.303(b)(2) specifically states that (VoiceOver) screen reader software is an effective method of 

making visually delivered material available to individuals who are blind or have low vision.

20. 28 C.F.R. Section 36.303(c)(1)(ii) specifically states that public accommodations 

must furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective 

communication with individuals with disabilities. “In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and 

services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect 

the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability.” 

21. 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. 

22. Defendant’s mobile website has been designed to integrate with its brick-andmortar restaurant through the provision of a reservation service, the provision of a to-go/delivery

order menu/service, and the ability to book private dining events as well as to purchase gift cards 

on line for exclusive use when dining at the Lionfish restaurant. By and through its mobile website,

Defendant extends its restaurant into individual persons' homes and portable devices wherever 

located, therefore the mobile website is a service, facility, privilege, advantage, benefit and 

accommodation of Defendant's restaurant and is a nexus to its brick-and-mortar restaurant location. 

Therefore, it is governed by the following provisions:

a. U.S.C. Section 12182(a) provides: “No 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 6 of 15
7

who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.”

b. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(i) provides: “It shall be discriminatory to 

subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such 

individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial 

of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity[.]”

c. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides: “It shall be discriminatory 

to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such 

individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with 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[.]”

d. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides: “It shall be discriminatory 

to provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such 

individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, 

service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that 

provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of 

individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other 

opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others[.]”

e. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(B) provides: “Goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall be afforded to an individual with a disability in 

the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual.”

f. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(C) provides: “Notwithstanding the existence 

of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, an 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 7 of 15
8

individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or 

activities that are not separate or different.”

g. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(ii) describes as discrimination: “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[.]”

h. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(iii) describes as discrimination: “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[.]”

23. Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's mobile website, but was 

unable to, and continues to be unable to enjoy full and equal access to the mobile website and/or 

understand the content therein because numerous portions of the mobile website do not interface 

with mobile VoiceOver screen reader software. Specifically, features of the mobile website that 

are inaccessible to VoiceOver screen reader software users include, but are not limited to, the 

following (citing the WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guidelines): 

i. Guideline 1.3.1 Info and Relationships is violated. Accessibility issues are present in the 

PDF menu. For example, the main menu icon is not labeled as its announced only as “? 

Link.”

ii. Guideline 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence is violated. Content must be presented in a 

meaningful order, and the mobile website fails to meet this requirement. Mobile VoiceOver 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 8 of 15
9

screen reader software users are unable to select a date in order to make a reservation as 

the reservation form is not accessible. After opening the date picker, focus moves to 

several hidden elements and then moves to the time field on the underlying page.

iii. Guideline 2.4.3 Focus order is violated as the mobile website is required to provide focus 

in a logical order and this is not the case. For example, after clicking the Reservations

button at the top of the homepage, the reservations dialog is displayed along with a booking

form, but the dialog is not announced and focus does not move to it when it is displayed. 

Focus instead moves to an unlabeled main menu icon. Mobile VoiceOver screen reader 

software users must swipe 27 times and navigate past multiple unlabeled images before 

focus moves into the Reservation form. 

iv. Guideline 2.4.6 Heading and Labels must be clear and this is not the case. The Start Time 

field and End Time field on the Group Dining form are not accessible to mobile VoiceOver 

screen reader software users. The Start Time field and End Time field are both announced 

as a text field instead of a popup, so mobile VoiceOver screen reader software users do not 

understand that they must double tap to show/trigger the list of available times from which 

they can make a reservation (time) selection. Even if a mobile VoiceOver screen reader 

software user manages to open the popup, the available (dining) times are not announced. 

For example, after double tapping Start Time field, the field expanded and a list of times 

are shown, but these available (dining) times not announced; focus instead moves to the 

End Time field.

v. Guideline 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value is violated. All elements must be built for accessibility 

and this is not the case. For example, a promotional popup is displayed when the homepage 

opens, but this promotional popup is not announced and focus does not move to it. When 

a Mobile VoiceOver screen reader software swipes (even multiple times) they hear 

unlabeled links and hidden elements which are not shown in the dialog.

24. In the instant case, Defendant’s mobile website reservation, gift card (purchase 

store), and food delivery systems are linked to third party vendors. The fact that a portion of the 

WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guideline violations may be related to various third party vendor

platforms does not absolve Defendant of culpability. Because restaurants are places of public 

accommodation, their operators are subject to the requirements of Title III as well. 42 U.S.C. § 

12181(7)(b). Those requirements include a prohibition against subjecting patrons with disabilities 

to discrimination “through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements,” such as use of third party 

vendors’ inaccessible platforms for making reservations. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A); See Kohler 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 9 of 15
10

v Bed Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1264-66 (9th Cir. 2015) (Pre-existing 

obligations under Title III of the ADA may not be avoided through contractual arrangements, and 

those obligations remain even where compliance is under control of another party); Robles v. Yum! 

Brands, Inc., 2018 WL 566781, *4 (C.D. Cal. January 24, 2018) (restaurant operators are liable 

for website and mobile app accessibility where there is a nexus to the restaurants themselves).

25. As the owner and/or operator of the Lionfish restaurant mobile website, Defendant 

is required to comply with the ADA and the provisions cited above. This includes Defendant’s 

obligation to create and maintain a mobile website that is accessible to and usable by visually

impaired persons so that they can enjoy full and equal access to the mobile website and the content

therein, including the ability to make a reservation to dine within the Lionfish restaurant, to 

purchase Lionfish gift cards online, and to order food for delivery or pick up curbside. 

26. With respect to its mobile website, Defendant has violated the ADA by failing to

interface its mobile website with VoiceOver screen reader software utilized by visually impaired

individuals (as specifically delineated within paragraph 23) either directly or through contractual, 

licensing or other arrangements. Defendant’s violations have resulted in Defendant denying 

Plaintiff accommodation on the basis of her disability:

a. by depriving Plaintiff of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of its place of public accommodation (42 

U.S.C. § 12182(a));

b. in the denial of providing Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in or benefit 

from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations (42 U.S.C. §

12182(b)(1)(A)(i));

c. in failing to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in or benefit from 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 10 of 15
11

a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is equal to that afforded to 

other individuals (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii));

d. by providing Plaintiff a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or 

accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals (unless such 

action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, 

privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided 

to others) (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii));

e. by failing to afford Plaintiff goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, and accommodations in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the 

disabled individual (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(B));

f. notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities 

provided in accordance with this section, by denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in such 

programs or activities that are not separate or different. (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(C));

g. by 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) (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(ii)); and,

h. by a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that disabled 

individuals are not 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. §

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 11 of 15
12

12182(b)(2)(iii)).

27. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations within Defendant's mobile website

and is aware that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize the mobile website as long as 

those violations exist unless she is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

28. Plaintiff is well aware that the ADA requires effective communications. However, 

long after the required date of compliance, many public accommodations refuse to comply leaving 

Plaintiff feeling excluded and rejected because she is disabled. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered

(and continues to suffer) frustration and humiliation as the result of the discriminatory conditions 

present within Defendant's mobile website. By continuing to operate its mobile website with 

discriminatory conditions, Defendant contributes to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation 

and deprives Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges 

and/or accommodations available to the general public. By encountering the discriminatory 

conditions within Defendant's mobile website and knowing that it would be a futile gesture to 

attempt to utilize the mobile website unless she is willing to endure additional discrimination, 

Plaintiff is deprived of the meaningful choice of freely visiting and utilizing the same 

accommodations readily available to the general public and is deterred and discouraged from doing 

so. By maintaining a mobile website with violations, Defendant deprives Plaintiff the equality of 

opportunity offered to the general public.

29. Plaintiff has suffered (and will continue to suffer) direct and indirect injury as a 

result of Defendant’s discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the requirements 

of the ADA and conform its mobile website to WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guidelines.

30. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination 

from Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to its mobile website. Plaintiff has 

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 12 of 15
13

reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation 

of the ADA by Defendant when she visits the mobile website to test for compliance with the ADA. 

Plaintiff desires to access the mobile website to avail herself of the benefits, advantages, goods 

and services therein, and/or to assure herself that the mobile website is in compliance with the 

ADA so that she and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the mobile 

website without fear of discrimination.

31. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and has suffered (and will continue to 

suffer) irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated will continue to suffer such 

discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief as requested herein.

32. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant Plaintiff 

Injunctive Relief, including an order to require Defendant to alter its mobile website to make it 

readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff and other persons with vision impairments.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Windy Lucius hereby demands judgment against Defendant 

Clique 307, LLC and requests the following injunctive and declaratory relief: 

a. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that Defendant's mobile 

website is in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12181 et seq.;

b. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant has violated the ADA by 

failing to monitor and maintain its mobile website to ensure that it is readily 

accessible to and usable by persons with vision impairment;

c. The Court issue an Order directing Defendant to alter its mobile website to make it 

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

by Title III of the ADA;

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 13 of 15
14

d. The Court issue an Order directing Defendant provide the appropriate auxiliary aids 

such that individuals with visual impairments will be able to effectively 

communicate with the https://lionfishdelray.com mobile website for purposes of 

comprehending Defendant’s Lionfish menu selections, ordering/paying for gift 

cards, making reservations for dining within the restaurant, and for ordering food 

for delivery or pickup curbside, and during that time period prior to the mobile 

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 that disabled 

individuals are not impeded from obtaining the goods and services made available 

to the public through Defendant’s mobile website.

e. The Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize its policies 

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

allow Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures;

f. The Court enter an Order directing Defendant to continually update and maintain 

its mobile website to ensure that it remains fully accessible to and usable by visually 

impaired individuals;

g. The Court award attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12205; and,

h. The Court provide such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is 

allowable under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dated: August 23, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 14 of 15
15

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

Telephone: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2022 Page 15 of 15