1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

VICTOR ARIZA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

EARTH’S GODDESS HOLISTICS & 

JUICEBAR, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant EARTH’S 

GODDESS HOLISTICS & JUICEBAR, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, 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. 

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

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

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

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.

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 1 of 18
2

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 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 2 of 18
3

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 is a Florida limited liability company authorized to do business and 

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

selling natural juices, vegan food products, plant-based skincare products, and supplements

located at 1032 NW 10th Ave, Fort Lauderdale, Florida that Plaintiff intended to patronize in the 

near future.. 

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

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

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

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

permanently blind, to effectively communicate and comprehend information available on the 

internet and thereby access and comprehend websites, Plaintiff uses commercially available screen 

reader software to interface with the various websites.

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

operates, and/or controls a retail store selling natural juices, vegan food products, plant-based 

skincare products, and supplements under the name “Earth’s Goddess Holistics & Juicebar”. The 

“Earth’s Goddess Holistics & Juicebar” store is open to the public. As the owner, operator, and/or

controller of this retail store, Defendant is defined as a place of “public accommodation" within 

meaning of the ADA because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “a bakery, 

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 3 of 18
4

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). In addition, Defendant is

defined as a place of “public accommodation" within meaning of the ADA because it is a private 

entity that owns, controls, and/or operates “a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food 

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

11. Because Defendant is a store open to the public, Defendant’s physical store is a 

place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182, 

§12181(7)(B), and §12181(7)(E), and the ADA’s implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

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

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

public information on the location of Defendant’s store that sells Defendant’s merchandise within 

the State of Florida. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise and food products through 

the Website, which acts as a point of sale for merchandise that is also available from, in, and 

through Defendant’s physical store.

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

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

information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers.

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

location of Defendant’s physical store and purchase merchandise and food products also available 

for purchase in the physical store, arrange in-store pickups of food and beverage products and 

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 store, the Website has a nexus 

to, and is an extension of and gateway to, the goods, services, privileges, and advantages of 

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 4 of 18
5

Defendant’s physical store, which is a place 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 Defendant at and through its brick-and-mortar location

and business. Furthermore, the Website is a necessary service and privilege of Defendant’s 

physical store in that, as a point of sale for the store, it enables users of the Website to make online 

purchases of Defendant’s products that are also available from and in its physical store.

15. Because the public can view and purchase Defendant’s products through the 

Website that are also offered for sale in Defendant’s physical store, thus having the Website act as 

a point of sale for Defendant’s products also sold in the physical store, arrange in-store pickups of 

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

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

and gateway to the physical store, which is a place of public accommodation pursuant to the ADA, 

42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B) and (E). As such, the Website is a necessary service, privilege, and 

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

ADA, 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 store.

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

operating 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 Defendant’s brick-and-mortar 

store 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 5 of 18
6

enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, and advantages as are afforded the non-visually 

disabled public both online and in the physical store. As such, Defendant has subjected itself and 

the Website to the requirements of the ADA.

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

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

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

beverages and merchandise, arrange in-store pickups of food and beverages and 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 store. In the alternative, Plaintiff 

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

to interact properly with screen reader software. 

18. The opportunity to shop and pre-shop Defendant’s products both online and in the 

physical store, arrange in-store pickups of products purchased online, and sign up for an emailer 

to receive exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the 

physical store 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. Defendant has not provided its business 

information in any other digital format that is accessible for use by blind and visually disabled 

individuals using 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 6 of 18
7

20. Beginning in 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 food and beverages, merchandise, services, sales, discounts, and promotions being offered, 

learn about the brick-and-mortar store, check store hours, and check product pricing with the intent 

to make a purchase through the Website or in the physical store. Plaintiff also attempted to access 

and utilize the Website in his capacity as a tester to determine whether it was accessible to blind 

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

navigate company websites.

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

blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant’s Website 

contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals 

using keyboards and available screen reader software. These barriers are pervasive and include, 

but are not limited to: 

a. The Shop submenu is inaccessible when navigating with a keyboard;

b. The shopping bag is mislabeled as “zero”;

c. On the OUR Menu, product images are mislabeled as “link” with no other 

description;

d. At the footer of the Website, the Order Online Now (Doordash) is mislabeled;

e. Product price is not labeled to integrate with the screen reader; and

f. Underneath the Contact Info at the footer of the website, the address and hours 

of operation are inaccessible, and the telephone number lacks a proper description.

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.

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 7 of 18
8

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

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

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

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

on the Website.

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

feeling excluded, as he is unable to participate in the same shopping experience, with the same 

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

the physical store as the non-visually disabled public.

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

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

is presently unable to do so as he is unable to effectively communicate with Defendant 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 Defendant through the 

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

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

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

enjoined by this Court.

26. Because of the nexus between Defendant’s physical store and the Website, and the 

fact that the Website clearly provides support for and is connected to Defendant’s physical store 

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

Defendant’s brick-and-mortar store that must comply with all requirements of the ADA, must not 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 8 of 18
9

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

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

public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

disabilities.

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

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

disabilities.

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

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

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

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

Accessibility Testing program. 

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

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 9 of 18
10

explaining when and how Defendant 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. Defendant has not disclosed to the public any intended audits, changes, or lawsuits 

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

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

from their homes.

38. Defendant thus has 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 store 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. 

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

action.

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

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

means to comprehend information presented therein.

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

access to all visitors to the Website.

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 10 of 18
11

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 Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory practices 

in connection with its website access and operation.

45. Notice to Defendant is not required because of Defendant’s 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.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE ADA

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

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

under the ADA and thus is subject to the ADA.

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

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

purchase food and beverages and other merchandise that is also available for purchase in the 

physical store, arrange in-store pickups of products purchased online, and sign up for an emailer 

to receive exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 11 of 18
12

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

the public as to Defendant’s available products sold through the Website and in the physical store.

51. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful 

discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities an 

opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 

or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals.

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

discrimination includes, among other things, “a failure to make reasonable modifications in 

policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, 

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the 

nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.”

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

discrimination includes, among other things, “a failure to take such steps, as may be necessary to 

ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise 

treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, 

unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of 

the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result 

in an undue burden.”

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

alleged hereinabove and below.

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 12 of 18
13

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

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

56. The Website was subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in 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. Defendant thus has made insufficient 

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff with a viable alternative means to access and navigate the Website. Defendant thus has 

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

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 or any other useful and effective 

alternative mans to access the Website, and the numerous access barriers on the Website as alleged 

herein and 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.

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 13 of 18
14

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

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

accessibility facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

undue burden to Defendant.

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

access to the Website 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.

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

accommodation ensure that communication is effective. 

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

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

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

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

63. According to 28 C.F.R. §36.303(c), public accommodations must furnish 

appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with 

individuals with disabilities: “In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided 

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 14 of 18
15

in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and 

independence of the individual with a disability,” 28 C.F.R. §36.303(c)(1)(ii).

64. Part 36 of Title 28 of the C.F.R. was designed and is implemented to effectuate 

subtitle A of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by 

public accommodations, and requires places of public accommodation to be designed, constructed, 

and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by Part 36.

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

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

thus violates the ADA.

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

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

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

and its physical store. 

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

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

ongoing disability discrimination. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the physical store.

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 15 of 18
16

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

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

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

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

modifications are made, and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

services. 

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

the following relief:

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

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 16 of 18
17

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

ADA; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

accessibility by implementing a website accessibility coordinator, a website application 

accessibility policy, and providing for website accessibility feedback to ensure 

compliance thereto;

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

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

Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures to its Website;

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

accessibility and accessibility features for the Website to ensure effective 

communication for individuals who are visually disabled;

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

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

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

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

1 or similar.

Case 1:22-cv-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 17 of 18
18

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

all web content and services with ADA accessibility requirements and applicable 

accessibility guidelines;

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

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

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

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

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

counsel for review;

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

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

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

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. 

DATED: October 28th, 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-23522-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 18 of 18