UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

5TH BITE OF THE APPLE, LLC 

d/b/a Black Rock Bar & Grill, and 

755 MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. 

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Windy Lucius hereby sues Defendant 5th Bite of the Apple, LLC doing business 

as Black Rock Bar & Grill and Defendant 755 Management Company, Inc. doing business as 

https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com for Injunctive Relief, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses

and costs pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. §§s 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 the Defendants’ 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 Windy Lucius (“Plaintiff”) is a Florida resident, lives in Miami-Dade

County, issui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 1 of 17
2

is legally blind and 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. 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 him 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 Defendants for offering and maintaining a mobile website (soFortware 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 soFortware 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 and monitoring, ensuring, and determining 

whether places of public accommodation and/or their mobile websites are in compliance with the 

ADA.

6. Defendant 5th Bite of the Apple, LLC (also referenced as “Defendant Apple” or 

collectively with Defendant 755 Management Company, Inc. as “Defendants”) is a Florida limited 

liability company which is the franchise owner and operator of a Black Rock Bar & Grill (brand) 

restaurant which is located within this district and is open to the public. Defendant Apple is defined 

as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title III because Defendant Apple 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).

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 2 of 17
3

7. Defendant Apple’s Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurant (which is the subject of this 

action) is located in Fort Lauderdale at 6200 N Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 

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). Defendant Apple’s Black Rock Bar & Grill

restaurant is referenced herein as “place of public accommodation,” “Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort

Lauderdale (restaurant),” or “restaurant.”

8. Defendant 755 Management Company, Inc. (also referenced as “Defendant 

Management Company” or collectively with Defendant Apple as “Defendants”) is a Michigan 

corporation. On information and belief, 755 Management Company, Inc. is the franchisor and/or 

internet marketing manager of the twenty-one Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants in Michigan, 

Ohio, Indiana, Florida and Maryland. The Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurant brand features 

certified Angus beef steaks grilled on a 755 degree volcanic sizzling rock.

9. Subsequent to the effective date of the ADA, Defendant Management Company

constructed, or caused to be constructed, the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile 

website (hereinafter “mobile website”) for the benefit and use of Black Rock Bar & Grill 

restaurants. The mobile website supports, is an extension of, is in conjunction with, is 

complementary and supplemental to Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants, and specifically the five 

Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants licensed in Florida which are:

• Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale located at 6200 N Federal Highway, Fort

Lauderdale, Florida 33308, which is owned by franchisee Defendant 5th Bite of the Apple, 

LLC (a party to this action);

• Black Rock Bar & Grill Orlando located at 8965 Conroy Windermere Road, Orlando, 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 3 of 17
4

Florida 32835, which is owned by franchisee BR Windermere, LLC (which is not a party 

to this action);

• Black Rock Bar & Grill Brandon located at 804 Providence Road, Brandon, Florida 33511, 

which is owned by franchisee Black Rock Brandon, LLC (which is not a party to this 

action);

• Black Rock Bar & Grill Tampa located at 11702 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, 

Florida 33618 which is owned by franchisee Carrollwood, LLC (which is not a party to 

this action); and 

• Black Rock Bar & Grill Coral Springs (opening soon) located at 2554 North University 

Drive, Coral Springs, Florida 33071, which is owed by 7th Bite of the Apple, LLC (which 

is not a party to this action).

Defendant Management Company constructed the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile 

website with the intent that the general public access its mobile website on their mobile devices 

(phones, tablets). This mobile website supports, is an extension of, is in conjunction with, is 

complementary and supplemental to Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants and specifically the Black 

Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale restaurant. 

10. The mobile website delineates the goods, services, accommodations, privileges,

benefits and facilities available to patrons at Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants, and specifically

the Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale restaurant. 

11. The intent of the mobile website is to provide a way for the public to become 

familiar with all Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants, and specifically to become familiar (with 

intent of patronizing) with the Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale restaurant. The mobile 

website features Black Rock Bar & Grill menu selections, hours of operation, and restaurant 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 4 of 17
5

location. The mobile website provides a link to order food online and have that food delivered1 or 

have the prepared food available for pickup, allows the public to purchase gift cards online for 

exclusive use at Black Rock restaurant locations (including the Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort

Lauderdale location) and provides other information Defendants seek to communicate to the 

public. The mobile website also links to The Black Rock Bar & Grill Facebook and Instagram 

pages and permits the public to communicate with the restaurants via a “contact us” fill in form.

By the provision of menu selection, food pickup and delivery options, and the ability to purchase 

gift cards online (for exclusive use at Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants) the mobile website is 

an integral part of the goods and services offered by Defendants. By this nexus, the mobile website

is characterized as a Place of Public Accommodation to Title III of the ADA2, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

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

12. As the owner of the mobile website which is a Place of Public Accommodation, 

Defendant Management Company is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of 

Title III under 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7)(B) & (E) and 28 C.F.R. §§36.104(2) & (5).

13. The https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com 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. Defendants have subjected themselves to the 

ADA because the mobile website is offered as a tool to promote, advertise and sell Defendants’ 

products and services from Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants and specifically from the Black 

1 Delivery options include Door Dash, Grub Hub, and Uber Eats.

2 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 

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.

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 5 of 17
6

Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale restaurant location. As a result, the mobile website must interact 

with the public, and in doing so must comply with the ADA, which means the mobile website 

cannot discriminate against individuals with disabilities and cannot deny individuals with 

disabilities full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services which Defendants afford to the 

general public.3

14. The 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.

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

the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile website to comprehend Black Rock Bar & Grill

restaurant menu selections, purchase gift cards online, and to order food online for pickup or for 

delivery. However, unless Defendants are required to eliminate the access barriers and change 

their policies so that access barriers do not reoccur, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full and 

equal access to the mobile website and will be deterred from fully using the mobile website and/or 

dining at the Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale restaurant.

16. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations on the mobile website and is aware 

that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize that mobile website as long as those violations 

exist unless she is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

17. Defendants and alike restaurants are fully aware of the need to provide full access 

to all visitors to the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile website as barriers result in 

3 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-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 6 of 17
7

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. 

18. 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 Defendants’

discriminatory practice.

19. Notice to Defendants is not required as a result of Defendants’ failure to cure the 

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

2202. 

20. 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 Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205 and 28 CFR 36.505.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF TITLE III OF THE ADA

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

Accommodation) ensure that communication is effective, which includes the provision of auxiliary 

aids and services for such purpose.

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

“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.

23. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 7 of 17
8

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.” 

24. 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. 

25. The https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile website has been designed to 

integrate with the Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants and the Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort

Lauderdale restaurant location by providing the public the ability to order food through a food 

delivery (and pick up) platform as well as to purchase gift cards (for exclusive use at Black Rock 

Bar & Grill restaurants) online; therefore, the mobile website is an extension of Black Rock Bar 

& Grill restaurants (specifically, the Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale restaurant). By and 

through the mobile website, Defendants have specifically extended Black Rock Bar & Grill 

restaurants (including the Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale restaurant) into individual 

persons' homes and portable devices wherever located. The mobile website is a service, facility, 

privilege, advantage, benefit and accommodation of Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurants and is 

integrated with, and is a nexus to, the Black Rock Bar & Grill Fort Lauderdale 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 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 8 of 17
9

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

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

activities that are not separate or different.”

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 9 of 17
10

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[.]”

26. Plaintiff attempted but was unable to access and/or utilize the mobile website 

https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com. Plaintiff 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 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 1.1.1 Non-Text Content is violated. Mobile VoiceOver screen reader software

users cannot access any of the content in the Kids menu, only “image” is announced.

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

Delivery menu. The content in the Delivery menu is not announced. When a mobile 

VoiceOver screen reader software user swipes through the Delivery menu, only "image" is 

announced.

iii. Guideline 1.4.5 Images of Text is violated. The site does not use images of text (so that 

screen readers are unable to comprehend). The content on the 14-page menu is not 

accessible for mobile VoiceOver screen reader software users, while “image” is announced 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 10 of 17
11

multiple times, the text is not announced.

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

and this is not the case. While there are no reservations through the mobile website for the 

Fort Lauderdale restaurant location, for the Tampa restaurant location, mobile VoiceOver 

screen reader software users are not able to book a reservation using the click to book 

priority seating button. While the button is announced, it does not open. A mobile 

VoiceOver screen reader software user is only able to access the booking page, if they click 

on an unlabeled Open Table logo. 

27. As the owner and/or operator of the Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurant mobile 

website, Defendants are required to comply with the ADA and the provisions cited above. This 

includes Defendants’ 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 their mobile 

website and the content therein, including the ability to order food online for delivery or pickup, 

and the ability to purchase gift cards online. 

28. In this instant case, the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile website food 

delivery accommodations and “priority seating reservations” are linked to a third party vendors. 

The fact that a portion of the WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guideline violations may be related to 

third party vendors does not absolve Defendants 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 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 11 of 17
12

operators are liable for website and mobile app accessibility where there is a nexus to the 

restaurants themselves).

29. With respect to the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile website, 

Defendants have violated the ADA by failing to interface the mobile website with VoiceOver

screen reader software utilized by visually impaired individuals (as specifically delineated within 

paragraph 26) either directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements. These 

violations have resulted in Defendants’ joint and several denial of accommodation to Plaintiff in 

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 

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, 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 12 of 17
13

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 activitiesthat are notseparate 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 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. §

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

30. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations within the mobile website and is

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

violations exist unless she is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

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

long aForter 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 13 of 17
14

conditions present within the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile website. By 

continuing to operate the mobile website with discriminatory conditions, Defendants continue to 

contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation and to deprive Plaintiff the full and equal 

enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and/or accommodations Defendants make 

available to the general public. By encountering the discriminatory conditions within the 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, 

Defendants have deprived (and continue to deprive) Plaintiff the equality of opportunity offered 

to the general public.

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

result of Defendants’ discrimination until Defendants are compelled to comply with the 

requirements of the ADA and conform their mobile website to WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA

Guidelines.

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

from Defendants’ non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the mobile website 

https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that she will 

continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by Defendant when she visits 

the 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 

this mobile website is in compliance with the ADA so that Plaintiff will have full and equal 

enjoyment of the mobile website without fear of discrimination.

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 14 of 17
15

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

suffer) irreparable harm. Plaintiff will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage 

without the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested herein.

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

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to require Defendants to alter the 

https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com 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 5th 

Bite of the Apple, LLC and Defendant 755 Management Company, Inc. and requests the following 

injunctive and declaratory relief:

a. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the 

https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com 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 Defendants have violated the ADA by 

failing to monitor and maintain the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile 

website to ensure that it is readily accessible to and usable by persons with vision 

impairment;

c. The Court issue an Order directing Defendants to alter the mobile website to make 

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

required by Title III of the ADA;

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

aids such that individuals with visual impairments will be able to effectively 

communicate with the https://www.blackrockrestaurants.com mobile website for 

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 15 of 17
16

purposes of comprehending Black Rock Bar & Grill menu selections, 

ordering/paying for giFort cards online, and ordering food for delivery or pickup

and during that time period prior to the mobile website being designed to permit 

individuals with visual impairments to effectively communicate, requiring 

Defendants 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 the mobile website.

e. The Court enter an Order directing Defendants to evaluate and neutralize their

policies and procedures towards persons with disabilities for such reasonable time

so as to allow Defendants to undertake and complete corrective procedures;

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

the 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 , 2022

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

T: 305-351-2014

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 16 of 17
17

cc@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22764-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 17 of 17