1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

VICTOR ARIZA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

COLETTE, LLC, d/b/a BABYCOTTONS,

a Florida limited liability company; and

CLEO HOLDINGS, INC. a Florida

for-profit corporation, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendants COLETTE, 

LLC, d/b/a BABYCOTTONS, a Florida limited liability company (“Colette”), and CLEO 

HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation (“Cleo”), and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, 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 to prevent the continuing act of trespass 

against the Plaintiff’s personal property (his personal computer and its hard drive), and for 

compensatory damages to Plaintiff for such trespass. Remedies provided under common law for 

trespass are not exclusive and may be sought in connection with suits brought under the ADA.

 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 1 of 21
2

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

over Plaintiff’s common law tort claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

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”).

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., and 42 U.S.C. §3602(h). 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 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 auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and 

assistance. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 2 of 21
3

using the visual internet, a seeing user learns that a link may be ‘clicked,’ which will bring him to 

another webpage, through visual cues, such as a 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 his 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 Colette is a Florida limited liability company authorized to do business 

and doing business in the State of Florida. Defendant Cleo is a Florida for-profit corporation 

authorized to do business and doing business in the State of Florida and is the managing member 

of Colette. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a chain of retail stores selling children’s 

apparels, shoes, and accessories, including one of the stores that Plaintiff intended to patronize in 

the near future located at 19501 Biscayne Boulevard, Aventura, Florida. 

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, 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.

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 3 of 21
4

10. At all times material hereto, Defendants were and still are organizations that own, 

operate, and/or control a chain of retail stores selling children’s apparels, shoes, and accessories

under the name “Babycottons”. Each “Babycottons” store is open to the public. As the owners, 

operators, and/or controllers of these retail stores, Defendants are defined as a place of “public 

accommodation" within meaning of the ADA because Defendants are private entitites which own 

and/or operate “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).

11. Because Defendants are a store open to the public, each of Defendants’ physical 

stores is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 

§12182, §12181(7)(E), and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

12. Defendants also own, control, maintain, and/or operate an adjunct website, 

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

the public information on the locations of Defendants’ stores through a “store locator” feature that

identifies physical store locations that sell Defendants’ merchandise throughout the United States 

and within the State of Florida. Defendants also sell to the public their merchandise through the 

Website, which acts as a point of sale for merchandise available in, from, and through Defendants’ 

network of physical stores (but not necessarily the store that Plaintiff intended to patronize). 

13. The Website also services Defendants’ physical stores by providing information on 

available products, services, tips and advice, editorials, sales campaigns, events, and other 

information that Defendants are interested in communicating to their customers.

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

locations of Defendants’ physical stores, purchase merchandise also available for purchase in and 

from the physical stores, arrange ins-toe pickups and returns of merchandise purchased online, and 

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 4 of 21
5

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

use online and in the physical stores, the Website has a nexus to, and is an extension of and gateway 

to, the goods, services, privileges, and advantages of Defendants’ physical stores, which are places 

of public accommodation under the ADA. As an extension of and service, privilege, and advantage 

provided by a place of public accommodation as defined under the ADA, the Website is an 

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

Defendants at and through their brick-and-mortar locations and businesses. Furthermore, the 

Website is a necessary service and privilege of Defendants’ physical stores in that, as a point of 

sale for the stores, it enables users of the Website to make online purchases of Defendants’ 

merchandise that is available from and in their physical stores (but not necessarily in the physical 

store that Plaintiff intended to patronize).

15. Because the public can view and purchase Defendants’ goods through the Website 

that are also offered for sale in the physical stores, thus having the Website act as a point of sale 

for Defendants’ products that are also sold in the physical stores, arrange in-store pickups and 

returns of merchandise purchased online, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive online 

offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical stores, the Website is 

an extension of, and gateway to the physical stores, which are places of public accommodation 

pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E). As such, the Website is a necessary service, 

privilege, and advantage of Defendants’ brick-and-mortar stores that must comply with all 

requirements of the ADA, 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 non-visually disabled public both online and in 

the physical stores.

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 5 of 21
6

16. At all times material hereto, Defendants were and still are organizations owning, 

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

internet, by this nexus the Website is an intangible service, privilege, and advantage of Defendants’ 

brick-and-mortar stores that must comply with all requirements of the ADA, 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 as are afforded 

the non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical stores. As such, Defendants have

subjected themselves and the Website to the requirements of the ADA.

17. Plaintiff is and/or 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, one or 

more of Defendants’ physical stores (including the store located at 19501 Biscayne Boulevard,

Aventura, Florida), and to search for the brick-and-mortar stores, check store hours and 

merchandise pricing, purchase merchandise, arrange in-store pickups and returns of merchandise 

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

discounts for use at the Website or in Defendants’ physical stores. 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 Defendants’ merchandise, arrange delivery 

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

discounts for use both online and in the physical stores from his home are important and necessary 

accommodations for Plaintiff because traveling outside of his home as a visually disabled 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 6 of 21
7

Defendants have not provided their business information in any other digital format that is 

accessible for use by blind and visually impaired individuals using the screen reader software.

19. Like many consumers, Plaintiff accesses a number of websites at a time to help plan 

his store visits and to compare merchandise, prices, sales, discounts, and promotions. Plaintiff 

may look at several dozens of sites to compare features, discounts, promotions, and prices.

20. During the month of July 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, learn about the brick-and-mortar 

stores, check store hours, and check merchandise pricing with the intent to make a purchase 

through the Website or in one of the physical stores. 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 available screen reader software that allows individuals who are 

blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, the 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 pop-up window for subscribe is not labeled to integrate with the screen 

reader;

b. The home page button/company logo is mislabeled;

c. The submenus are inaccessible when navigating with a keyboard;

d. The search and my account buttons are mislabeled as “link”;

e. Wishlist and shopping cart buttons are mislabeled as “link zero”; and

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 7 of 21
8

f. Product price and color options are not labeled to integrate with the screen reader.

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

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

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

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. 

Although the Website appeared to have an “accessibility” statement displayed and an 

“accessibility widget deployed, the “accessibility” statement and widget, when tested, still could 

not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, 

including Plaintiff. Plaintiff, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance 

through the “accessibility” statement or widget to enable him to quickly, fully, and effectively 

navigate 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 shopping experience, with the same 

access to the merchandise, sales, services, discounts, and promotions, as provided at the Website 

and in the physical stores 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 Defendants’ physical stores and to use the Website, but he 

is presently unable to fully do so as he is unable to effectively communicate with Defendants 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, as well 

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 8 of 21
9

as others who are blind and with visual disabilities, will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from 

Defendants’ intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth herein unless properly 

enjoined by this Court.

26. Because of the nexus between Defendants’ retail stores and the Website, and the 

fact that the Website clearly provides support for and is connected to Defendants’ retail stores for 

its operation and use, the Website is an intangible service, privilege, and advantage of Defendants’ 

brick-and-mortar stores that must comply with all requirements of the ADA, must not 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 as afforded the nonvisually disabled public both online and in the physical stores, which are places of public 

accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA.

27. On information and belief, Defendants have not initiated a Web Accessibility 

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

28. On information and belief, Defendants have not instituted a Web Accessibility 

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

29. On information and belief, Defendants have 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, Defendants have 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, Defendants have not instituted a User Accessibility 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 9 of 21
10

32. On information and belief, Defendants have not instituted a Bug Fix Priority Policy.

33. On information and belief, Defendants have not instituted an Automated Web 

Accessibility Testing program. 

34. Defendants have not created and instituted an effective Specialized Customer 

Assistance line or service or email contact mode for customer assistance for the visually disabled.

35. Defendants have not created and instituted on the Website a useable page for 

individuals with disabilities, nor displayed a link and information hotline, nor created an 

information portal explaining when and how Defendants will have the Website, applications, and 

digital assets accessible to the visually disabled or blind community.

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

2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility.

37. Defendants have 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 Defendants’ merchandise offered on the Website and from the 

physical stores from their homes.

38. Defendants have not provided full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided by and through the 

Website and the physical stores in contravention of the ADA.

39. Public accommodations under the ADA 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 mandate of the ADA is to provide an equal opportunity for individuals 

with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of American civic and economic life. 

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 10 of 21
11

That mandate extends to internet shopping websites, such as the Website at issue in the instant 

action.

41. Defendants are, and at all relevant times have 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.

42. Defendants are, and at all relevant times have 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, including 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 Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory practices 

in connection with its website access and operation.

45. Notice to Defendants is not required because of their failure to cure the violations. 

46. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA 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.

Trespass Violations

48. Plaintiff utilizes his computer to access websites such as the Website. 

49. Plaintiff uses his computer as a method of conveyance of his personal information. 

Plaintiff thus stores his personal information and retains his browsing history on his computer.

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 11 of 21
12

50. When a user accesses the Website, Defendants place information tracking and 

gathering software on the user’s personal computer and hard drive without the user’s advance 

consent or knowledge. Defendants also plant browser cookies on a user’s computer and hard drive 

to identify websites that the user has previously visited by accessing the user’s web browser 

history.

51. Defendants inform the Website user that the user’s personal information and 

browsing history is collected and is used for targeted marketing and advertising. However, 

because of his blindness, Plaintiff was unable to comprehend the Website; therefore, Plaintiff had 

no choice, and likewise no knowledge, of Defendants’ installation of data and information tracking 

and gathering software on his computer and the collection of Plaintiff’s browsing history and 

analytics.

52. Thus, through the Website, Defendants have committed a trespass against Plaintiff, 

since the Website places information tracking and gathering software on the Plaintiff’s computer 

without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE ADA

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

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

the ADA and thus is subject to the ADA.

55. 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 Defendants’ stores, 

purchase merchandise that is also available for purchase in and from the physical stores, arrange 

delivery and returns of merchandise purchased online, and sign up for an emailer to receive 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 12 of 21
13

stores. The Website thus is an extension of, gateway to, and intangible service, privilege, and 

advantage of Defendants’ physical stores. Further, the Website also serves to augment 

Defendants’ physical stores by providing the public information about the physical stores and by 

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

physical stores.

56. 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.

57. 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.”

58. 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.”

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 13 of 21
14

59. The Website must comply with the ADA, but it does not as specifically alleged 

hereinabove and below.

60. 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 

Defendants have made available to the public on the Website and in the physical stores in violation 

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

61. The Website was subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in July 2022, and the 

expert determination was that the same access barriers that Plaintiff had initially encountered, as 

well as numerous additional access barriers, existed. Defendants thus have 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. Also, when the Website was 

visited by the expert, although the Website appeared to have an “accessibility” statement and 

“accessibility” widget on the Website, that “accessibility” statement and widget, when tested, still 

could not be effectively used or accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually 

disabled persons such as Plaintiff. Defendants thus have failed to make reasonable modifications 

in its policies, practices, or procedures when such 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 set forth in the Declaration of Plaintiff’s expert, 

Robert D. Moody, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “A” 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.

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 14 of 21
15

62. 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.

63. 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 Defendants’ business nor would it result in an 

undue burden to Defendants.

64. Defendants have violated the ADA -- and continues to violate the ADA -- 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.

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

accommodation ensure that communication is effective. 

66. 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.

67. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 15 of 21
16

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).

68. 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.

69. 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.

70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to provide an ADA 

compliant Website, with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar stores, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in 

fact by being denied full access to, enjoyment of, and communication with the Website and the

physical stores. 

71. 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. 

72. 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 Defendants 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 

Defendants’ 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 stores.

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 16 of 21
17

b) Require Defendants 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 Defendants 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 Defendants’ physical stores and becoming informed of and purchasing 

Defendants’ 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 the physical stores. 

73. 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 Defendants

for the following relief:

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

B. An Order requiring Defendants, 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 17 of 21
18

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

ADA; 

C. An Order requiring Defendants, 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 Defendants’ 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 Defendants, 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 Defendants, 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 the Website;

F. An Order directing Defendants, 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 

the Website to be fully accessible to the visually disabled;

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

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

1 or similar.

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 18 of 21
19

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 Defendants, 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 Defendants to send a copy of the twelve (12) quarterly reports to Plaintiff’s 

counsel for review;

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

directly link from the Website homepage, a statement of Defendants’ 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 her reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses; and

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

COUNT II – TRESPASS

74. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 52 as if set forth fully herein.

75. Plaintiff’s tangible personal property, being his computer and the personal 

information and browsing history stored therein, has suffered a trespass by Defendants on each 

and every date that the Plaintiff has accessed the Website, due to Defendants’ employment of 

information tracking and gathering software and analytics which are present on and through the 

Website.

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 19 of 21
20

76. At all relevant times, Plaintiff did not consent to and was unaware that the Website 

was placing the information tracking and gathering software on his computer and its hard drive

due to his visual disability and his inability to effectively communicate with and fully view and 

access the Website.

77. Plaintiff did not consent to the placement of information tracking and gathering 

software on his computer and its hard drive; therefore, Defendants have committed a trespass 

against Plaintiff by placing such software on his computer and its hard drive without his knowledge 

or consent.

78. By the acts described hereinabove, Defendants have repeatedly and persistently 

engaged in trespass of Plaintiff’s personal property in violation of Florida common law against

trespass to chattel.

79. Defendants’ installation, operation, and execution of information tracking and 

gathering software on Plaintiff’s computer have directly and proximately impaired the condition 

and value of the Plaintiff’s computer, thereby causing Plaintiff damages.

80. The Website has a “Privacy Policy” that discusses the automatic gathering of 

information from and the automatic placement of cookies and other information gathering software 

on, computers of users of the Website such as Plaintiff. A copy of that “Privacy Policy” is attached 

hereto as Exhibit “B” and its contents are incorporated herein by reference.

81. Defendants’ trespass to chattel, nuisance, and interference has caused real and 

substantial damage to Plaintiff as follows:

a) By consuming the resources of and/or degrading the performance of Plaintiff’s 

computer (including space, memory, processing cycles, and internet connectivity);

b) By infringing on Plaintiff’s right to exclude others from his computer;

Case 1:22-cv-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 20 of 21
21

c) By infringing on Plaintiff’s right to determine, as the owner of his computer , which 

programs should be installed and operated on his computer;

d) By compromising the integrity, security, and ownership of Plaintiff’s computer ; and

e) By forcing Plaintiff to expend money, time, and resources in order to remove the 

programs that had been installed on his computer without notice or consent.

82. Defendants’ actions were taken knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and in reckless 

disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment be entered against Defendants, jointly and 

severally, for all of Plaintiff’s compensatory damages, interest, costs, and such further relief as the 

Court deems just and equitable.

DATED: August 30, 2022.

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

Counsel for Plaintiff DURAN, P.A.

4800 N. Hiatus Road 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-22760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 21 of 21