UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

VICTOR ARIZA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

SETA BRICKELL CORP.,

d/b/a SETA APPAREL,

a Florida for-profit corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant SETA 

BRICKELL CORP., d/b/a SETA APPAREL, a Florida for-profit corporation, and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive, attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation 

expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”), as amended, and 28 C.F.R. Part 36. This is 

also an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation 

expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of the Miami-Dade County Code of 

Ordinances, §§11A-19(a)(1), 11A-19(a)(3)(c) and (d), 11A-24(1), and 11A-24(2) (“Miami-Dade 

Code”).

 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 

U.S.C. §1331, and the provisions of the ADA. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202. In addition, this Court has supplementary jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s state law claim for violation of the Miami-Dade Code pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 1 of 25
2

3. Venue is proper in this Court as all actions complained of herein and injuries and 

damages suffered occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

4. Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is sui juris, 

and is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 

(“ADAAA”), and the Miami-Dade Code, §11A-2(17)(a). 

5. Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been blind and visually disabled in that he 

suffers from optical nerve atrophy, a permanent eye disease and medical condition that 

substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. Plaintiff thus is 

substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, 

seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and adequately traversing obstacles As such, he is a 

member 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., 42 U.S.C. §3602(h), and the MiamiDade Code, §11A-2(17)(a). Plaintiff further is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated 

disabled persons and is a “tester” for the purposes of asserting his civil rights and monitoring, 

ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation and/or their respective and 

associated websites are in compliance with the ADA, the Miami-Dade Code, and any other 

applicable disability laws, regulations, and ordinances.

6. Because he is blind, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of 

appropriate and available screen reader software. Screen reader software translates the visual 

internet into an auditory equivalent. At a rapid pace, the software reads the content of a webpage 

to the user. “The screen reading software uses auditory cues to allow a visually impaired user to 

effectively use websites. For example, when using the visual internet, a seeing user learns that a 

link may be ‘clicked,’ which will bring her to another webpage, through visual cues, such as a 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 2 of 25
3

change in the color of the text (often text is turned from black to blue). When the sighted user's 

cursor hovers over the link, it changes from an arrow symbol to a hand. The screen reading 

software uses auditory—rather than visual—cues to relay this same information. When a sight 

impaired individual reaches a link that may be ‘clicked on,’ the software reads the link to the user, 

and after reading the text of the link says the word ‘clickable.’...Through a series of auditory cues 

read aloud by the screen reader, the visually impaired user can navigate a website by listening and 

responding with her keyboard.” Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 17-CV-767, 2017 WL 

6542466, at *6-7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2017).

7. Defendant is a Florida for-profit corporation authorized to do business and doing 

business in the State of Florida. Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a retail apparel store

located at Brickell City Center, 701 S Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida., which Plaintiff intended to 

patronize in the near future. 

8. Plaintiff’s visual disability limits him in the performance of major life activities,

including sight, and he requires assistive technologies, auxiliary aids and services for effective 

communication, including communication in connection with his use of a computer. 

9. Plaintiff frequently accesses the internet. Because he is significantly and 

permanently blind and visually disabled, in order to effectively communicate and comprehend 

information available on the internet and thereby access and comprehend websites, Plaintiff uses 

commercially available screen reader software to interface with the various websites.

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant was and still is an organization that owns,

operates, and/or controls a retail apparel store under the name “Seta Apparel.” The Seta Apparel

store is open to the public. As the owner and operator of this retail store, Defendant is defined as 

a place of “public accommodation" within meaning of the ADA because Defendant is a private 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 3 of 25
4

entity which owns and/or operates “a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, 

shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment,” per 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. 

§36.104(2). Defendant is also defined as a “place of public accommodation” because it is a private 

entity which owns and/or operates “[a] bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, 

shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment,” per the Miami-Dade Code §11A-20(e).

11. Because Defendant is a store open to the public it operates as a place of public 

accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA and its implementing regulations, 42 

U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(E), and 28 C.F.R. Part 36, and a place of public accommodation subject 

to the requirements of the Miami-Dade Code, §11A-20(e). 

12. Defendant alo owns controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website,

https://www.setaapparel.com (the “Website”). One of the functions of the Website is to provide 

the public information on the location of Defendant’s store that sells its merchandise to the public. 

Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical 

point of sale for the salre of Defendant’s merchandise available in, from, and through its physical 

store.

13. The Website also services Defendant’s physical store by providing information on 

the store’s location, available merchandise, tips and advice, editorials, sales campaigns, events, 

and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers.

14. Because the Website allows the public the ability to secure information about the 

location of Defendant’s physical store, purchase merchandise also available for purchase in and 

from the physical store, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusvie online offers, benefits, 

invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical store, the Website is an extension of, 

and gateway to, the goods, services, privileges, and advantages of Defendant’s physical store. As 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 4 of 25
5

a service, privilege, and advantage provided by a place of public accommodation as defined under 

the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code, the Website is an extension of the goods, services, privileges, 

and advantages made available to the general public by Defendant at and through its brick-andmortar location and businesses. Furthermore, the Website is a necessary service and privilege of 

Defendant’s physical store in that, as a point of sale for the store, it enables users of the Website 

to make online purchases of Defendant’s merchandise that is available in and from its physical 

store.

15. Because the public can view and purchase Defendant’s merchandise that is also 

offered for sale in and from Defendant’s physical store, thus acting as a point of sale for 

Defendant’s merchandise sold in the physical store, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive 

online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical store, the 

Website is a necessary extension of, gateway to, and service, privilege, and advantage of the 

physical store, which are places of public accommodation under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E), and pursuant to the Miami-Dade Code, §11A-20(e). As such, the Website is a 

necessary service, privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s brick and mortar store that must comply 

with all requirements of the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code, must not discriminate against 

individuals with visual disabilities, and must not deny those individuals the same full and equal 

access to and enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, and advantages afforded the nonvisually disabled public both online and in the physical store. 

16. At all times material hereto, Defendant was and still is an organization owning,

operating, and/or controlling the Website. Since the Website is open to the public through the 

internet and is connected to Defendant’s physical store as a point of sale for the purchase of 

merchandise from Defendant and its physical store, the Website is a necessary service, privilege, 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 5 of 25
6

and advantage of Defendant’s brick-and-mortar store that must comply with all requirements of 

the ADA and ther Miami-Dade Code, must not discriminate against individuals with visual 

disabilities, and must not deny those individuals the full and equal access to and enjoyment of the 

goods, services, privileges, and advantages afforded the non-visually disabled public both online 

and in the physical store. As such, Defendant has subjected itself and the Website to the 

requirements of the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code. 

17. Plaintiff is and has been a customer who is interested in patronizing, and intends to 

patronize in the near future once the Website’s access barriers are removed or remedied, 

Defendant’s physical store, and to check store hours and merchandise pricing, purchase 

merchandise, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive offers, benefits, invitations, and 

discounts for use at the Website or in Defendant’s physical store. In the alternative, Plaintiff 

intends to monitor the Website in the near future as a tester to ascertain whether it has been updated 

to interact properly with screen reader software.

18. The opportunity to shop and pre-shop Defendant’s merchandise offered for sale in 

the physical store and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive offers, benefits, invitations, and 

discounts for use online and in the physical store from his home are important accommodations 

for Plaintiff because traveling outside of his home as a physically and visually disabled individual 

is often a difficult, hazardous, frightening, frustrating and confusing experience. Defendant has 

not provided its business information in any alternative digital format that is accessible for use by 

blind and visually disabled individuals using screen reader software while using the internet.

19. Like many consumers, Plaintiff accesses numerous websites at a time to compare 

merchandise, prices, services, sales, discounts, and promotions. Plaintiff may look at several 

dozens of sites to compare features, discounts, promotions, and prices.

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 6 of 25
7

20. During the months of November 2021 and June 2022, Plaintiff attempted on a 

number of occasions to utilize the Website to browse through the merchandise and online offers 

to educate himself as to the merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions being offered, and with 

the intent of making a purchase through the Website or at Defendant’s store. Plaintiff also 

attempted to access and utilize the Website in his capacity as a tester to determine whether it was 

accessible to blind and visually disabled persons such as himself who use screen reader software 

to access and navigate company websites.

21. Plaintiff utilizes screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and 

visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant’s Website contains access 

barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards 

and available screen reader software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. The sign in button is mislabeled as “unnamed”;

b. Promotional images are not labeled to integrate with the screen reader;

c. Once an item is selected, the item’s regular price and sale price are inaccessible;

d. Inside the shopping cart, the product cost, subtotal, shipping cost, and total are not 

accessible to integrate with the screen reader;

e. After a product is removed from the shopping cart, there is no confirmation that 

the action was executed;

f. The text underneath the section “payment options/learn more” is inaccessible; and

g. The company telephone number is not accessible to integrate with the screen reader.

22. The Website also lacks prompting information and accommodations necessary to 

allow blind and visually disabled individuals who use screen reader software to locate and 

accurately fill out online forms to purchase Defendant’s merchandise from the Website.

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 7 of 25
8

23. Plaintiff attempted to locate an “accessibility” notice, statement, or policy on the 

Website that would direct him to a webpage with contact information for disabled individuals who 

have questions or concerns about, or who are having difficulties communicating with, the Website. 

However, Plaintiff was unable to do so because no such link or notice, statement, or policy existed 

on the Website.

24. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left him 

feeling excluded, as he is unable to participate in the same online and in-store shopping experience, 

with the same access to the merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions, as provided at the 

Website and in the physical store as the non-visually disabled public.

25. Plaintiff desires and intends, in the near future once the Website’s access barriers 

are removed or remedied, to patronize Defendant’s physical store and to use the Website as an 

extension, service, privilege, and advantage of the physical store, but he is presently unable to fully 

do so, as he is unable to effectively communicate with Defendant’s physical store due to his 

blindness and the Website’s access barriers. Alternatively, as a tester using screen reader software, 

Plaintiff is unable to effectively access, navigate, and communicate with Defendants through the 

Website due to his blindness and the Website’s access barriers. Thus, Plaintiff, and others who 

are blind and visually disabled, will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s 

intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth herein unless properly enjoined by 

this Court.

26. Because the Website clearly provides support for and is connected to Defendant’s 

retail store for its goods, services, operation, and use, and is a necessary service, privilege, 

advantage, and accommodation of Defendant’s brick-and-mortar store for the purchase of 

Defendant’s merchandise, the Website must comply with all requirements of the ADA, must not 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 8 of 25
9

discriminate against individuals with disabilities, and must not deny those individuals the same 

full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, and advantages afforded 

the non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical store, which is a place of public 

accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code.

27. On information and belief, Defendant has not initiated a Web Accessibility Policy 

to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with disabilities.

28. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a Web Accessibility 

Committee to ensure full and equal use of Website by individuals with disabilities.

29. On information and belief, Defendant has not designated an employee as a Web 

Accessibility Coordinator to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with 

disabilities.

30. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a Web Accessibility User 

Accessibility Testing Group to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with 

disabilities.

31. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a User Accessibility 

Testing Group to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with disabilities.

32. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a Bug Fix Priority Policy.

33. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted an Automated Web 

Accessibility Testing program. 

34. Defendant has not created and instituted a Specialized Customer Assistance line or 

service or email contact mode for customer assistance for the blind and visually disabled.

35. Defendant has not created and instituted on the Website a page for individuals with 

disabilities, nor displayed a link and information hotline, nor created an information portal 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 9 of 25
10

explaining when and how Defendant will have the Website, applications, and digital assets 

accessible to the visually disabled and blind communities.

36. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 

2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility.

37. Defendant has not disclosed to the public any intended audits, changes, or lawsuits 

to correct the inaccessibility of the Website to visually disabled individuals who want the safety 

and privacy of purchasing Defendant’s merchandise offered on the Website and in the physical 

store from their homes.

38. Thus, Defendant has not provided full and equal access to and enjoyment of the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, programs and activities

provided by and through the Website and the physical store in contravention of the ADA and the 

Miami-Dade Code.

39. Further, public accommodations under the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code must 

ensure that their places of public accommodation provide effective communication for all 

members of the general public, including individuals with visual disabilities such as Plaintiff. 

40. The broad mandates of the ADA adnt eh Miami-Dade Copde are to provide equal 

opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of 

American civic and economic life. That mandate extends to internet shopping websites such as 

the Website. 

41. Defendant is, and at all relevant times has been, aware of the barriers to effective 

communication within the Website which prevent individuals with visual disabilities from the 

means to comprehend information presented therein.

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 10 of 25
11

42. Defendant is, and at all relevant times has been, aware of the need to provide full 

access to all visitors to the Website.

43. The barriers that exist on the Website result in discriminatory and unequal 

treatment of individuals with visual disabilities such as Plaintiff.

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

alleged hereinabove, and this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is his only means 

to secure adequate and complete redress from Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory practices 

in connection with its website access and operation.

45. Notice to Defendant is not required under the ADA because of Defendant’s failure 

to cure the violations. As to the Miami-Dade Code, Plaintiff has exhausted all of his available 

administrative remedies and brings this action within 90 days of issuance of a right-to-sue notice 

by the Director of the Miami-Dade Commission on Human Rights (“MDCHR”), as provided by 

the Miami-Dade Code, §11A-24. A copy of the MDCHR’s right-to-sue notice is attached as 

Exhibit ”A”. 

46. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code is right 

and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202. 

47. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys to represent him in this case, and 

has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their services.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE ADA

48. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 47 as if set forth fully herein.

49. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), Defendant is a public accommodation under 

the ADA because it owns and/or operates physical retail store and the connected Website.

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 11 of 25
12

50. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), the Website is covered under the ADA 

because it provides the general public with the ability to locate and learn about Defendant’s 

physical store, acts as a point of sale for Defendant’s physical store by allowing users to purchase 

merchandise that is also available for purchase in and from the physical store, and allows users to 

sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for 

use both online and in the physical store. The Website thus is an extension of, gateway to, and 

necessary service, privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s physical store. Further, the Website 

also serves to augment Defendant’s physical store by providing the public information on the 

location of the store and by educating the public as to Defendant’s available products sold through 

the Website and in the store. The Website thus is necessary for Plaintiff to fully enjoy and have 

access to all of the goods, services, privileges, and advantages being offered by Defendant both 

online and in its physical store.

51. 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.

52. Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(II), unlawful 

discrimination 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.”

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 12 of 25
13

53. In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(III), unlawful 

discrimination includes, among other things, “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.”

54. Defendant’s Website must comply with the ADA, but it does not as specifically 

alleged hereinabove and below.

55. Because of the inaccessibility of the Website, individuals with visual disabilities 

are denied full and equal access to and enjoyment of the information, goods, and services that 

Defendant has made available to the public on the Website and in its physical store in violation of 

42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., and as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §12182, et seq.

56. The Website was subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in January 2022 and 

June 2022, and the expert determination was that the same access barriers that Plaintiff had initially 

encountered, as well as numerous additional access barriers, existed. Defendant thus has made 

insufficient material changes or improvements to the Website to enable its full use and enjoyment 

by, and accessibility to, blind and visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff. Defendant 

furthermore has not disclosed to the public any intended audits, changes, or lawsuits to correct the 

inaccessibility of the Website to visually disabled individuals, nor has it posted on the Website an 

effective “accessibility” notice, statement, or policy to provide blind and visually disabled person 

such as Plaintiff with a viable alternative means to access and navigate the Website. Defendant 

thus has failed to make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, or procedures when such 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 13 of 25
14

modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or 

accommodations to individuals with disabilities, in violation of 28 C.F.R. §36.302. The lack of a 

viable and effective “accessibility” notice, policy, or statement and the numerous access barriers 

as alleged herein and as set forth in the Declaration of Plaintiff’s expert, Robert D. Moody, attached 

hereto as Composite Exhibit “B” and the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference, 

continue to render the Website not fully accessible to users who are blind and visually disabled, 

including Plaintiff.

57. More violations may be present on other pages of the Website, which can and will 

be determined and proven through the discovery process in this case.

58. Further, the Website does not offer or include the universal symbol for the disabled 

that would permit disabled individuals to access the Website’s accessibility information and 

accessibility facts.

59. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the internet for making 

websites accessible to the blind and visually disabled. These guidelines have been followed by 

other large business entities in making their websites accessible. Examples of such guidelines 

include, but are not limited to, adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be 

performed using a keyboard. Incorporating such basic components to make the Website accessible 

would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor would it result in an 

undue burden to Defendant.

60. Defendant has violated the ADA – and continues to violate the ADA – by denying 

access to the Website, and hence its connected physical store, by individuals such as Plaintiff with 

visual disabilities who require the assistance of interface with screen reader software to 

comprehend and access internet websites. These violations within the Website are ongoing.

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 14 of 25
15

61. The ADA requires that public accommodations and places of public 

accommodation ensure that communication is effective. 

62. According to 28 C.F.R. §36.303(b)(1), auxiliary aids and services include “voice, 

text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems”. Indeed, 28 C.F.R. 

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

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

63. According to 28 C.F.R. §36.303(c), 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,” 28 C.F.R. §36.303(c)(1)(ii).

64. 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.

65. As alleged hereinabove, the Website has not been designed to interface with the 

widely and readily available technologies that can be used to ensure effective communication, and 

thus violates the ADA.

66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide an ADA 

compliant Website that is an extension, service, privilege, and advantage of, and point of sale for,

its brick-and-mortar store, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact by being denied full access to and 

enjoyment of Defendant’s physical store.

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 15 of 25
16

67. Because of the inadequate development and administration of the Website, Plaintiff 

is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12133 and 28 C.F.R. §36.303, to remedy the 

ongoing disability discrimination. 

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

Plaintiff appropriate and necessary injunctive relief; including an order to: 

a) Require Defendant to adopt and implement a web accessibility policy to make publicly 

available and directly link from the homepage of the Website to a functional statement as to the 

Defendant’s policy to ensure persons with visual disabilities have full and equal access to and 

enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered 

in Defendant’s physical store through the Website and the physical store.

b) Require Defendant to take the necessary steps to make the Website readily accessible 

to and usable by blind and visually disabled users, and during that time period prior to the 

Website’s being made readily accessible, provide an alternative method for individuals with visual 

disabilities to access the information available on the Website until such time that the requisite 

modifications are made, and 

c) Require Defendant to provide the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with 

visual disabilities will be able to effectively communicate with the Website for purposes of 

viewing and locating Defendant’s physical store and becoming informed of and purchasing 

Defendant’s merchandise online, and during that time period prior to the Website’s being designed 

to permit individuals with visual disabilities to effectively communicate, to provide an alternative 

method for individuals with visual disabilities to effectively communicate for such goods and 

services made available to the general public through the Website and the physical store. 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 16 of 25
17

69. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses 

pursuant to the ADA. To that end, Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned counsel 

for the filing and prosecution of this action and has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their 

services. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in his favor and against Defendant for 

the following relief:

A. A declaration that Defendant’s Website is in violation of the ADA;

B. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to update the Website, and continue 

to monitor and update the Website on an ongoing basis, to remove barriers in order that 

individuals with visual disabilities can access, and continue to access, the Website and 

effectively communicate with the Website to the full extent required by Title III of the 

ADA; 

C. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to clearly display the universal 

disabled logo within the Website, wherein the logo1 would lead to a page which would 

state Defendant’s accessibility information, facts, policies, and accommodations. Such 

a clear display of the disabled logo is to ensure that individuals who are disabled are 

aware of the availability of the accessible features of the Website;

D. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to provide ongoing support for web 

accessibility by implementing a website accessibility coordinator, a website application 

accessibility policy, and providing for website accessibility feedback to ensure 

compliance thereto;

1 or similar.

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 17 of 25
18

E. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to evaluate its policies, practices and 

procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such reasonable time to allow 

Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures to its Website;

F. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to establish a policy of web 

accessibility and accessibility features for the Website to ensure effective 

communication for individuals who are visually disabled;

G. An Order requiring, by a date certain, that any third-party vendors who participate on 

Defendant’s Website to be fully accessible to the visually disabled;

H. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once yearly thereafter, to 

provide mandatory web accessibility training to all employees who write or develop 

programs or code for, or who publish final content to, the Website on how to conform 

all web content and services with ADA accessibility requirements and applicable 

accessibility guidelines;

I. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once every three months 

thereafter, to conduct automated accessibility tests of the Website to identify any 

instances where the Website is no longer in conformance with the accessibility 

requirements of the ADA and any applicable accessibility guidelines, and further 

directing Defendant to send a copy of the twelve (12) quarterly reports to Plaintiff’s 

counsel for review;

J. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to make publicly available and directly 

link from the Website homepage, a statement of Defendant’s Accessibility Policy to 

ensure the persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of the Website and 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 18 of 25
19

shall accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means of submitting 

accessibility questions and problems; 

K. An award to Plaintiff of his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses; and

L. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE MIAMI-DADE CODE

70. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 47 and 56 through 59 as if set forth fully 

herein.

71. The Miami-Dade Code provides specifically for a private right of action for any 

persons aggrieved by violations of the Miami-Dade Code public accommodations provisions per 

§11A-24(1), upon the exhaustion of administrative remedies provided by the Miami-Dade Code 

and the issuance of a right-to-sue notice by the Director of the MDCHR.

72. Defendant is a public accommodation under the Miami-Dade Code as defined 

within §11A-20(e) and thus is subject to Article III, Chapter 11A, §§11A-19 through 11A-24 of 

the Miami-Dade Code.

73. Pursuant to §11A-20(e), the Website is covered under the Miami-Dade Code 

because it provides the general public with the ability to locate and learn about Defendant’s store, 

purchase merchandise that is also available for purchase in the physical store, and sign up for an 

emailer to receive exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use both online 

and in the physical store. The Website thus is an extension of, gateway to, and intangible service, 

privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s physical store. Further, the Website also serves to 

augment Defendant’s physical store by providing the public information about the store and by 

educating the public as to Defendant’s available merchandise sold through the Website and in the 

physical store.

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 19 of 25
20

74. Under §11A-19(a)(1) of the Miami-Dade Code, it is unlawful discrimination to To 

“refuse, withhold or deny to a person any services, access, advantages, goods, facilities or 

privileges of a public accommodation.”

75. Under §11A-19(a)(3)(c) of the Miami-Dade Code, unlawful discrimination 

includes, among other things, a “[f]ailure 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, 

service, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.”

76. In addition, under §11A-19(a)(3)(d) of the Miami-Dade Code, unlawful 

discrimination includes, among other things, a “[f]ailure 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.”

77. Defendant’s Website must comply with the Miami-Dade Code, but it does not as 

specifically alleged hereinabove and below.

78. Because of the inaccessibility of the Website, individuals with visual disabilities 

are denied full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, information, and services that 

Defendant has made available to the public on the Website and in its physical store in violation of 

the Miami-Dade Code, specifically §§11A-19(a)(1), 11A-19(a)(3)(c) and (d).

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 20 of 25
21

79. Defendant has violated the Miami-Dade Code -- and continues to violate the 

Miami-Dade Code -- by denying access to the Website by individuals such as Plaintiff with visual 

disabilities who require the assistance of interface with screen reader software to comprehend and 

access internet websites. These violations within the Website are ongoing.

80. The Miami-Dade Code requires that public accommodations and places of public 

accommodation ensure that communication is effective.

81. As alleged hereinabove, the Website has not been designed to interface with the 

widely and readily available technologies that can be used to ensure effective communication, and 

thus violates the Miami-Dade Code.

82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide a Miami-Dade 

Code compliant website, with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar store, Plaintiff has suffered an injury 

in fact by being denied full access to, enjoyment of, and communication with Defendant’s Website 

and its physical store.

83. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide a Miami-Dade 

Code compliant website, with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar store, Plaintiff has suffered, and will 

continue to suffer, emotional distress, frustration, and humiliation due to the discriminatory 

conditions and access barriers present on the Website. By continuing to operate the Website with 

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

and deprives Plaintiff the full and equal access to and enjoyment of Defendant’s goods, services, 

and benefits available to the non-visually disabled, general public. By encountering the 

discriminatory conditions at the Website and knowing that it would be a futile gesture to attempt 

to utilize the Website unless he is willing to endure additional discrimination, Plaintiff is deprived 

of the meaningful choice to freely visit and utilize the same store or the Website readily available 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 21 of 25
22

to the non-visually disabled public and is deterred and discouraged from doing so. By maintaining 

a Website with access barriers and violations, Defendant deprives Plaintiff from the equal access 

to, and same participation in and benefits from, Defendant’s goods and services available on the 

Website and in the physical store as the non-visually disabled public.

84. Plaintiff thus has suffered and will continue to suffer direct and indirect injury as a 

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

requirements of the Miami-Dade Code.

85. Because of the inadequate development and administration of the Website, Plaintiff 

is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to the Miami-Dade Code §11A-24(1) to remedy the ongoing 

disability discrimination. 

86. Pursuant to the Miami-Dade Code §11A-24(1), this Court is vested with the 

authority to grant Plaintiff appropriate and necessary injunctive relief, including an order to: 

a) Require Defendant to adopt and implement a web accessibility policy to make publicly 

available and directly link from the homepage of the Website to a functional statement as to the 

Defendant’s policy to ensure persons with disabilities have full and equal access to and enjoyment 

of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations through the Website

and the physical store.

b) Require Defendant to take the necessary steps to make the Website readily accessible 

to and usable by blind and visually disabled users, and during that time period prior to the 

Website’s being made readily accessible, provide an alternative method for individuals with visual 

disabilities to access the information available on the Website until such time that the requisite 

modifications are made, and 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 22 of 25
23

c) Require Defendant to provide the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with 

visual disabilities will be able to effectively communicate with the Website for purposes of 

viewing and locating Defendant’s physical store and becoming informed of and purchasing 

Defendant’s merchandise, and during that time period prior to the Website’s being designed to 

permit individuals with visual disabilities to effectively communicate, to provide an alternative 

method for individuals with visual disabilities to effectively communicate for such goods and 

services made available to the general public through the Website and in the physical store. 

87. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and exenses 

pursuant to the Miami-Dade Code, §11A-24(1). To that end, Plaintiff has been obligated to retain 

the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of this action and has agreed to pay them a 

reasonable fee for their services. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in his favor and against Defendant for 

the following relief:

A. A declaration that Defendant’s Website is in violation of the Miami-Dade Code;

B. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to update the Website, and 

continue to monitor and update the Website on an ongoing basis, to remove barriers 

in order that individuals with visual disabilities can access, and continue to access, 

the Website and effectively communicate with the Website to the full extent 

required by the Miami-Dade Code; 

C. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to clearly display the universal 

disabled logo within the Website, wherein the logo would lead to a page which 

would state Defendant’s accessibility information, facts, policies, and 

accommodations. Such a clear display of the disabled logo is to ensure that 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 23 of 25
24

individuals who are disabled are aware of the availability of the accessible features 

of the Website;

D. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to provide ongoing support for 

web accessibility by implementing a website accessibility coordinator, a website 

application accessibility policy, and providing for website accessibility feedback to 

ensure compliance thereto;

E. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to evaluate its policies, practices 

and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such reasonable time to allow 

Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures to its Website;

F. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to establish a policy of web 

accessibility and accessibility features for the Website to ensure effective 

communication for individuals who are visually disabled;

G. An Order requiring, by a date certain, that any third-party vendors who participate 

on Defendant’s Website to be fully accessible to the visually disabled;

H. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once yearly thereafter, 

to provide mandatory web accessibility training to all employees who write or 

develop programs or code for, or who publish final content to, the Website on how 

to conform all web content and services with Miami-Dade Code accessibility 

requirements and applicable accessibility guidelines;

I. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once every three 

months thereafter, to conduct automated accessibility tests of the Website to 

identify any instances where the Website is no longer in conformance with the 

accessibility requirements of the Miami-Dade Code and any applicable 

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 24 of 25
25

accessibility guidelines, and further directing Defendant to send a copy of the 

twelve (12) quarterly reports to Plaintiff’s counsel for review;

J. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to make publicly available and 

directly link from the Website homepage, a statement of Defendant’s Accessibility 

Policy to ensure the persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of the 

Website and shall accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means 

of submitting accessibility questions and problems; 

K. An award to Plaintiff of all his compensatory damages as allowed by the MiamiDade Code, §11A-24(1); 

L. An award to Plaintiff of her reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses; and

M. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 

DATED: July 26, 2022

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO

Counsel for Plaintiff DURAN, P.A.

4800 N. Hiatus Rd Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Sunrise, FL, 33351 4640 N.W. 7th Street

T. 954/362-3800 Miami, FL 33126-2309

954/362-3779 (Facsimile) T. 305/266-9780 

Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com 305/269-8311 (Facsimile)

Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com 

By____s/ Roderick V. Hannah __ By ___s/ Pelayo M. Duran ______

RODERICK V. HANNAH PELAYO M. DURAN

Fla. Bar No. 435384 Fla. Bar No. 0146595

Case 1:22-cv-22333-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 25 of 25