Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BLU SCARPA INC.

Defendant.

__________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, WINDY LUCIUS, (“Plaintiff”), hereby sues the Defendant, BLU SCARPA INC., 

(“Defendant”), a Florida for Profit Corporation, 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. § 12181-12189 (“ADA”). 

1. Plaintiff, WINDY LUCIUS is a Florida resident, lives in Miami-Dade County, is 

sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Plaintiff is blind 

and therefore unable to fully engage in and enjoy the major life activity of seeing. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 1 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc. 

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 2 of 10

information which is specifically designed for the visually impaired. 

3. 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. 

4. Defendant, BLU SCARPA INC, owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of 

public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 

CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104. The place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, 

or leases is located in Miami-Dade County. 

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

constructed, a website located at https://bluscarpa.com (hereinafter “website”). Defendant is the

owner, operator, lessor and/or lessee of the website. This website supports, is an extension of, is 

in conjunction with, is complementary and supplemental to, the above-referenced public 

accommodation. This website provides information about Defendant's public accommodation, 

including information about the special sales, goods, services, accommodations, privileges, benefits 

and facilities available to patrons at physical locations. On information and belief, Defendant also 

continually and/or periodically updates and maintains the website. 

6. 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. 

7. 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 Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 2 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 3 of 10

9. The website is an extension of Defendant’s place of public accommodation. By and 

through this website, Defendant extends its public accommodation into individual persons’ homes, 

portable devices and personal computers wherever located. The website is a service, facility, 

privilege, advantage, benefit and accommodation of Defendant's place of accommodation. The 

website also provides access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 

accommodations of the place of public accommodation. For example, the website provides a list of 

products, locations, services available, as well as all the option to make online appointments, and 

contact them. Defendant’s website provides access to benefits of Defendant’s physical stores and

Plaintiff was denied those benefits when she could not access Defendant’s mobile website. As 

such, the website has integrated with and is a nexus to the Miami Design District location.

Therefore, it is governed by the following provisions:

a. 42 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 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 3 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 4 of 10

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.”

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 4 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 5 of 10

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[.]’

10. As the owner or operator of the subject website, Defendant is required to comply 

with the ADA and the provisions cited above. This includes an obligation to create and maintain a 

website that is accessible to and usable by visually impaired persons so that they can enjoy full and 

equal access to the website and the content therein, including the ability to make an appointment

through the website, and contact the desired location.

11. Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's mobile website to test for 

accessibility, but was unable to, and she continues to be unable to enjoy full and equal access to 

the mobile website and/or understand the content therein because numerous portions of the mobile 

website do not interface with mobile VoiceOver screen reader software. Specifically, features of 

the mobile website that are inaccessible to VoiceOver screen reader software users include, but are 

not limited to, the following (citing the WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guidelines):

i. Guideline 1.1.1 – Non-Text Content is violated. Text alternatives for non-text content are 

provided. For example, Multiple unlabeled images are announced after the Shop All 

element. For example, the first image in the screenshot is announced as "untitled 1350 x.jpg 

image."

ii. Guideline 3.3.2 – Labels or Instructions is violated. Elements are labeled and give 

instructions. Multiple unlabeled buttons are announced at the top of each product page. For 

example, on the La Crema Tennis' product page, "button" was announced five times, so 

users immediately hear five unlabeled elements on each product page and cannot tell what 

they are missing or the purpose of these buttons. 

iii. Guideline 4.1.2 – Name, Role, Value is violated. All elements are built for accessibility.

For example, the 'Cart' icon isn't labeled. It's announced as just "? Link.".

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 5 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 6 of 10

iv. Guideline 1.4.5 – Images of Text. Website doesn't use images of text (screen readers are 

unable to read). For example, the size charts are only available as images. None of the 

sizing content in any of the charts is announce.

v. Guideline 4.1.3 – Status Messages. If a status message is presented and focus is not set to 

that message, then the message must be announced to screen reader users. The cart count 

updates when an item is added to the cart, but it's not announced. After a mobile SRU adds 

an item to the cart, then the focus moves to the price which is announced again.

12. Plaintiff continues to attempt to utilize the website and/or plans to continue to 

attempt to utilize the website in the near future. 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.

13. As more specifically set forth above, Defendant has violated the above cited 

provisions of the ADA by failing to interface its website with software utilized by visually 

impaired individuals. Thus, Defendant has violated the following provisions either directly or 

through contractual, licensing or other arrangements with respect to Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated individuals on the basis of their disability:

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

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

(42U.S.C. § 12182(a));

b. in the denial of 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 affording her 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 (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii));

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 6 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 7 of 10

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 her goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 

and accommodations in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the 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 her the opportunity to participate in such 

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

g. by a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can 

demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(ii)); and,

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

14. Plaintiff desires to continue to test Defendant’s mobile website for accessibility. 

Specifically, she would like to test whether she can book an appointment online; test whether she 

can determine what is available for her purchasing, and test what promotions are being offered and

what new items are currently available. In that regard, Plaintiff continues to attempt to utilize the 

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 7 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 8 of 10

website and/or plans to continue to attempt to utilize the website on a monthly basis to test whether 

she can make selections for purchasing online or in the store.

15. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's website and is aware 

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

unless she is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

16. Plaintiff hassuffered, and continuesto suffer, frustration and humiliation asthe result 

of the discriminatory conditions present at Defendant's website. By continuing to operate its

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

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

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

discriminatory conditions at Defendant's website and knowing that it would be a futile gesture to 

attempt to utilize the 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 

website with violations, Defendant deprives Plaintiff the equality of opportunity offered to the 

general public.

17. Plaintiff hassuffered and will continue to suffer direct and indirect injury as a result 

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

requirements of the ADA.

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

from the Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this website as described 

above. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to 

discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. Plaintiff desires to access the website to 

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 8 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 9 of 10

avail herself of the benefits, advantages, goods and services therein, and/or to assure herself that 

this website is in compliance with the ADA so that she and others similarly situated will have full 

and equal enjoyment of the website without fear of discrimination.

19. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated will continue to suffer such 

discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested 

herein.

20. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm.

Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees, costs and 

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

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

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

accessible to and usable by Plaintiff and other persons with vision impairment.

22. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned

counsel for the filing and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff is entitled to have her reasonable

attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses paid by Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

i. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant's website 

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

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

j. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant's website 

is in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 

et seq.;

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

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 9 of 10
Lucius v. Blu Scarpa Inc. 

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 10 of 10

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

and usable by persons with vision impairment;

l. That this Court issue an Order directing Defendant to alter its website to make it 

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

by Title III of the ADA;

m. That this Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize its 

policies and procedures towards persons with disabilities for such reasonable time 

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

n. That this Court enter an Order directing Defendant to continually update and 

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

visually impaired individuals;

o. An award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205; and, 

p. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under Title

III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Respectfully submitted on this October 25, 2022. 

By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

FBN: 628166 

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC. 

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, FL 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

legal@cunninghampllc.com

Case 1:22-cv-23486-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 10 of 10