UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AE RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, LLC 

d/b/a Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas (Ft. Lauderdale), and 

AE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Windy Lucius hereby sues Defendant AE Restaurant Enterprises, LLC doing 

business as Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas Ft. Lauderdale restaurant and Defendant AE Restaurant 

Group, Inc. doing business as Angelo Elia Group and https://www.angeloelia.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. §§ 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

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 1 of 16
2

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

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 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 

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

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

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

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

information which is specifically designed for the visually impaired.

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

is a “tester” for the purpose of asserting her civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and determining 

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

ADA.

6. Defendant AE Restaurant Enterprises, LLC (also referenced as “Defendant 

Restaurant” or collectively with Defendant AE Restaurant Group, Inc. as “Defendants”) is a Florida 

limited liability company which is the owner and operator of the Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas Ft. 

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

Restaurant is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title III because Defendant 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 2 of 16
3

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

7. Defendant Restaurant’s Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurant (which is the 

subject of this action) is located at 4215 North Federal Highway, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 

and because it is open to the public 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’s restaurant is referenced herein as 

“place of public accommodation,” “Angelo Elia Ft. Lauderdale (restaurant),” “Angelo Elia Ft. 

Lauderdale,” or “(Ft. Lauderdale) restaurant.”

8. The Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurant owned by Defendant is a part of a chain 

of four Angelo Elia restaurants which are located in Florida as follows:

• Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas located at 4215 North Federal Highway, Ft. Lauderdale, 

Florida, 33308, which is owned by the Defendant is the subject of this instant action;

• Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas located at the Country Isles Shopping Center, 1370 Weston 

Road, Weston, Florida 33326, which is owned by Angelo’s Wine Bar Weston, LLC and 

which is not a party to this action; 

• Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas located at Sawgrass Center, 5920 Coral Ridge Drive, Coral 

Springs, Florida 33076 which is owned by AE Coral Springs, LLC and which is not a party 

to this action. 

• Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas located at 16950 Jog Road, Delray Beach, Florida 33446 

which is owned by AE Addison PL, LLC and which is not a party to this action. 

On information and belief, all of the Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurants are owned by related 

entities. 

9. Defendant AE Restaurant Group, Inc. is a Florida for profit corporation that, on 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 3 of 16
4

information and belief, is also known as Angelo Elia Group. On information and belief, the Angelo 

Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurants are managed through oversight of the Angelo Elia Group. AE 

Restaurant Group, Inc. is referenced throughout this action as “Defendant AE Group” or 

collectively with Defendant Restaurant as “Defendants.”

10. Subsequent to the effective date of the ADA, Defendant AE Group constructed, or

caused to be constructed, the https://www.angeloelia.com mobile website (hereinafter “mobile 

website”) for the benefit and use of all Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurants with the intent that 

the general public access the https://www.angeloelia.com 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 Defendant Restaurant’s Ft. Lauderdale restaurant. The mobile 

website delineates the goods, services, accommodations, privileges, benefits and facilities

available to patrons of Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurant physical locations, and with 

particularity, the Angelo Elia Ft. Lauderdale restaurant. 

11. The mobile website is offered by Defendants as a way for the public to become 

familiar with the Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurant menu selections, hours of operation, and 

all four restaurant locations (including the Angelo Elia Ft. Lauderdale restaurant location). The 

mobile website provides a link to reserve a table for dining within each restaurant location, allows 

the public to inquire and book special/private events, and provides other information Defendants

seek to communicate to the public. The mobile website also links to Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas 

Twitter, Facebook and Instagram pages and allows the public to purchase gift cards online for use 

at Angelo Elia restaurant locations (including the Angelo Elia Ft. Lauderdale location) and has a 

feature to check the gift card balance online. The general public can also contact the restaurant 

through the mobile website and sign up for their “Exclusive News” newsletter. By the provision 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 4 of 16
5

of menu selection, reservation services, and the ability to purchase gift cards online, 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 ADA1, 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 AE Group is additionally 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.angeloelia.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 products and services 

from Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurants, including Defendant Restaurant’s Ft. Lauderdale

restaurant. As a result, the mobile website must interact with Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas 

restaurants and the public, and in doing so must comply with the ADA, which means it must not 

discriminate against individuals with disabilities and may not deny full and equal enjoyment of the 

goods and services afforded to the general public.2

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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

people with disabilities.

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

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

website and provided accessibility for blind users.

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 5 of 16
6

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.angeloelia.com mobile website to comprehend Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas

restaurant menu selections, to make reservations to dine in the Angelo Elia Ft. Lauderdale

restaurant, inquire/book private dining events, and to purchase gift cards online. 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 Angelo Elia 

Ft. Lauderdale restaurant which is located within this district.

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.angeloelia.com mobile website as barriers result in discriminatory 

and unequal treatment of individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired and result in 

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

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. 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 6 of 16
7

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 

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.angeloelia.com mobile website has been designed to integrate 

with Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurants through provision of a reservation service as well as 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 7 of 16
8

to inquire and book special/private events and to purchase gift cards online; therefore, the mobile 

website is an extension of Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurants, and specifically, the Angelo 

Elia Ft. Lauderdale restaurant. By and through the mobile website, Defendants have specifically 

extended Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurants into individual persons' homes and portable 

devices wherever located. The mobile website is a service, facility, privilege, advantage, benefit 

and accommodation of Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas restaurants and is integrated with, and is a 

nexus to Defendant Restaurant’s Angelo Elia Ft. Lauderdale restaurant. 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 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 8 of 16
9

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 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 9 of 16
10

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.angeloelia.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. Text alternatives for non-text content must 

be provided, and this is not the case. Promotional images, such as the Half off wine Monday

image, are not announced.

ii. Guideline 1.3.1 Info and Relationships is violated. The Reserve button at the bottom of the 

homepage opens a dialog when pressed, but the button is not labeled properly. Mobile 

VoiceOver screen reader software users hear the announcement as only text so they are not 

aware that this Reserve button is in fact a button.

iii. Guideline 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics is violated. The Select a Location combo box is 

announced as only “all” although visual cues are present, so mobile VoiceOver screen 

reader software users are unaware that this is a button. 

iv. Guideline 2.4.3 Focus order is violated. The site is required to provide focus in a logical 

order, and this has been violated. For example, the Delray Beach menu page only shows 

the drink menu. A mobile VoiceOver screen reader software user can access all of the menu 

content by downloading the PDF but the content is not accessible due to the focus order. 

For example, after multiple unlabeled images are announced, then only the dish description 

for the “Charcuterie board” is announced. The dish name and price are skipped. Focus then 

moves to the Pizza section and the description for the “Classic Margherita” pizza is 

announced.

v. Guideline 2.4.4 Link purpose (in context) is violated. For example, the Dollar Oyster Day 

link takes mobile VoiceOver screen reader software users to a page which contains the 

specifics for this promotion (such as the days and hours of this special), however the link 

is not announced so mobile VoiceOver screen reader software users will not become aware 

of this special and cannot access the details page. 

vi. Guideline 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions is violated. Elements must be labeled and given 

instructions, and the mobile website fails to do so with reference to the Pizza link, Bar link 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 10 of 16
11

and Tapas link. The Pizza link is announced, but focus moves to hidden links when a 

mobile VoiceOver screen reader software user presses the Pizza link. Further, an 

announcement is not made nor does an action occur when a mobile VoiceOver screen 

reader software user clicks the Bar link and/or the Tapas link.

27. As the owner and/or operator and/or beneficiary of the Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas

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 the mobile website and the content therein, including the ability to make a reservation to dine 

within the Angelo Elia Ft. Lauderdale restaurant, the ability to order food online for delivery, and 

the ability to purchase gift cards online. 

28. In this instant case, the https://www.angeloelia.com mobile website reservation 

platform is linked to a third party vendor. The fact that a portion of the WCAG 2.1 Level A and 

AA Guideline violations may be related to a third party vendor’s platform 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 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.angeloelia.com mobile website, Defendants have

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 11 of 16
12

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, 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 12 of 16
13

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

https://www.angeloelia.com 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 after the required date of compliance, many public accommodations refuse to comply leaving 

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

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

present within the https://www.angeloelia.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 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 13 of 16
14

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 https://www.angeloelia.com

mobile website. 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.

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.

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 14 of 16
15

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.angeloelia.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 AE 

Restaurant Enterprises, LLC and Defendant AE Restaurant Group, Inc. and requests the following 

injunctive and declaratory relief:

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

https://www.angeloelia.com 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.angeloelia.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.angeloelia.com mobile website for purposes of 

comprehending Angelo Elia Pizza Bar Tapas (Ft. Lauderdale) menu selections, 

ordering/paying for gift cards online, making reservations, and inquiring about 

booking private events online, and during that time period prior to the mobile 

website being designed to permit individuals with visual impairments to effectively 

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 15 of 16
16

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: September 13, 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

cc@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22921-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 16 of 16