1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

NELSON FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

FAMILY ENTERTAINMNENT GROUP,

LLC, d/b/a IN THE GAME, a foreign limited

Liability company, and FEG SAWGRASS,

LLC, d/b/a IN THE GAME,

a foreign limited liability company,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff NELSON FERNANDEZ, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendants

FAMIILY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a IN THE GAME, a foreign limited liability 

company, and FEG SAWGRASS, LLC, d/b/a IN THE GAME, a foreign 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 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 1 of 19
2

4. Plaintiff NELSON FERNANDEZ is a resident of Palm Beach 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 a visually impaired and physically 

disabled person who has been diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (“RRMS”). 

As a result of his disease, Plaintiff is currently paralyzed in approximately 80% to 90% of his body 

as a whole and only has very limited use of his left hand. Further, as a consequence of his disease, 

Plaintiff has developed optic neuritis and is visually disabled, with complete blindness in one eye 

and very limited vision in the other eye. Plaintiff thus is substantially limited in performing one 

or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing and 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 visually disabled, 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 2 of 19
3

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. Defendants are affiliated foreign limited liability companies authorized to do 

business and doing business in the State of Florida. Defendants own, operate, and/or control family 

entertainment venues including the venue Plaintiff intended to patronize in the near future located 

at The Oasis at Sawgrass Mills Mall, 2608 Sawgrass Mills Circle, Sunrise, 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 visually disabled, 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, Defendants were and still are affiliated and related 

organizations that own, operate, and/or control family entertainment venues under the name “In 

The Game”. Each “In The Game” entertainment venue is open to the public. As the owners,

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 3 of 19
4

operators, and/or controllers of these entertainment venues, Defendants are defined as places of 

“public accommodation" within meaning of the ADA because Defendants aare private entities

which own and/or operate “a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place 

of exhibition or entertainment,” per 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(C) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2).

11. Because Defendants are entertainment establishments open to the public, 

Defendants’ physical venues are places of public accommodation subject to the requirements of 

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(C), and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

12. Defendants also own, control, maintain, are linked to, and/or operate adjunct, 

interlinked websites, https://itgsawgrass.centeredgeonline.com and https://inthegame.net (the 

“Websites”). One of the functions of the Websitse is to provide the public information on the 

locations of Defendants’ entertainment venues. Defendants also sell to the public gift cards 

through the Website, which acts as a point of sale for Defendants’ services and merchandise 

available in, from, and through Defendants’ physical venues, and also allows the public the ability 

to book online parties and vents at Defendants’ physical venues. 

13. The Websites also service Defendants’ physical venues 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 Websites allow the public the ability to secure information about the 

locations of Defendants’ physical venues, book parties and events online that are also available for 

booking in the physical venues, purchase gift cards for use in the physical venues, and sign up for 

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

in the physical venues, the Websites have a nexus to, and are an extension of and gateway to, the 

goods, services, privileges, and advantages of Defendants’ physical venues, which are places of 

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 4 of 19
5

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

provided by places of public accommodation as defined under the ADA, the Websites are

extensions 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 

Websites are necessary services and privileges of Defendants’ physical venues in that, as points of 

sale for Defendants venues, it enables users of the Websites to make online purchases of 

Defendants’ services and merchandise that is available from and in its physical store.

15. Because the public can purchase and book online parties and events at Defendants’ 

physical venues that are also available for purchase and booking in the physical venues, thus 

having the Websites act as points of sale for Defendants’ services and products that are also 

available in the physical venues, purchase gift cards online for use in the physical venues, and sign 

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

online and in the physical venues, the Websites are extensions of and gateways to the physical 

venues, which are places of public accommodation pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E). 

As such, the Websites are necessary services, privileges, and advantages of Defendants’ brickand-mortar locations 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 nonvisually disabled public both online and in the physical venues.

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

operating, linking to, and/or controlling the Websites. Since the Websites are open to the public 

through the internet, by this nexus the Websites are intangible services, privileges, and advantages

of Defendants’ brick-and-mortar venues that must comply with all requirements of the ADA, must 

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 5 of 19
6

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 afforded the non-disabled public both online and in the physical venues. As such, Defendants

have subjected themselves and the Websites 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, 

Defendants’ physical store located at The Oasis at Sawgrass Mills Mall, 2608 Sawgrass Mills 

Circle, Sunrise, Florida, and to search for the brick-and-mortar venues, check venue hours and 

pricing, book and reserve the venue, purchase gift cards, and sign up for an emailer to receive 

exclusive offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use at the Websites or in Defendants’

physical venues. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends to monitor the Websites in the near future as 

a tester to ascertain whether it has been remedied and updated to interact properly with screen 

reader software. 

18. The opportunity to shop and pre-shop Defendants’ goods and services, purchase 

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

and discounts for use both online and in the physical venues 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. Defendants have 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 visits and compare merchandise, prices, sales, discounts, and promotions. Plaintiff may look 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 6 of 19
7

20. In the months of June and October 2022, Plaintiff attempted on a number of 

occasions to utilize the Websites to browse through the services and online offers to educate 

himself as to the services, merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions being offered, learn about 

the brick-and-mortar venues, check venue hours, and check venue pricing of services and 

merchandise with the intent to making a purchase or book a venue through the Websites or in the 

physical venue. Plaintiff, also attempted to access and utilize the Websites in his capacity as a 

tester to determine whether they were 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, Defendants’ Websites

contain 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. Shopping cart is mislabeled as "zero";

b. The return to home page button is mislabeled

c. The Gift Cards and Book a Party images are mislabeled as "Explore Now" with no other 

description

d. On the Book A Party link, at the Event Booking, the price is inaccessible

e. Pricing chart text information is inaccessible;

f. On the Gift Cards page, the shopping cart is not labeled to integrate with the screen 

reader;

g. . The main website, https://inthegame.net, redirects to a new web URL,

https://sunrise.inthegame.net, once the location had been chosen;

h. The location map contains the address and a link to location’s directions --

the address is inaccessible, and the Direction link does not state what the

directions are to; and

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 7 of 19
8

i. Each time a web page opens the screen reader starts to relay the

information on the screen and surpasses the skip to content button so

it cannot be clicked on before the screen reader continues to read on.

22. 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.

23. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Websites left him 

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

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

and in the physical venues as the non-visually disabled public.

24. Plaintiff desires and intends, in the near future once the Websites’ access barriers 

are removed or remedied, to patronize Defendants’ Sunrise physical venue and to use the Websites, 

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

due to his severe visual disability 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 Websites due to his severe visual disability and the Websites’ access 

barriers. Thus, Plaintiff, as well 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.

25. Because of the nexus between Defendants’ physical venues and the Websites, and 

the fact that the Websites clearly provide support for and are connected to Defendants’ venues for 

their operation and use, the Websites are intangible services, privileges, and advantages of 

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 8 of 19
9

Defendants’ brick-and-mortar venues 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 non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical venues, which are places 

of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA.

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

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

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

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

28. On information and belief, Defendants have not designated an employee as a Web 

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

disabilities.

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

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

disabilities.

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

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

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

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

Accessibility Testing program. 

33. Defendants have not created and instituted a Specialized Customer Assistance line 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 9 of 19
10

34. Defendants have not created and instituted on the Websites pages for individuals 

with disabilities, nor displayed links or information hotlines, nor created information portals

explaining when and how Defendants will have the Websites, applications, and digital assets 

accessible to the visually disabled or blind community.

35. The Websites do not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 

2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility.

36. Defendants have not disclosed to the public any intended audits, changes, or 

lawsuits to correct the inaccessibility of the Websites to visually disabled individuals who want 

the safety and privacy of purchasing Defendants’ services and/or merchandise offered on the 

Website and in the physical venues from their homes.

37. Defendants thus have not provided full and equal access to and enjoyment of the 

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

the Websites and the physical venues in contravention of the ADA.

38. 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.

39. 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 ecommerce and shopping websites, such as the Websites at issue 

in the instant action.

40. Defendants are, and at all relevant times have been, aware of the barriers to effective 

communication within the Websites that prevent individuals with visual disabilities from the 

means to comprehend information presented therein.

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 10 of 19
11

41. Defendants are, and at all relevant times have been, aware of the need to provide 

full access to all visitors to the Websites.

42. The barriers that exist on the Websites result in discriminatory and unequal 

treatment of individuals with visual disabilities, including Plaintiff.

43. 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 the Websites’ access and operation.

44. Notice to Defendants is not required because of Defendants’ failure to cure the 

violations. 

45. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA is right and just pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202.

46. 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

47. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 46 as if set forth fully herein.

48. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(C), Defendants are public accommodations under 

the ADA and thus are subject to the ADA.

49. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(C), the Website is covered under the ADA 

because it provides the general public with the ability to locate and learn about Defendants’

physical venues, book and reserve online parties and events at the physical venues that can also be 

booked and reserved in the physical venues, purchase gift cards for use both online and in the 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 11 of 19
12

and discounts for use both online and in the physical venues. The Websites thus are extensions

of, gateways to, and intangible services, privileges, and advantages of Defendants’ physical 

venues. Further, the Websites also serve to augment Defendants’ physical venues by providing 

the public information about the venues and by educating the public as to Defendants’ available 

services and merchandise sold through the Websites and in the physical venues.

50. 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.

51. 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.”

52. 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 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 12 of 19
13

53. The Websites must comply with the ADA but do not as specifically alleged 

hereinabove and below.

54. Because of the inaccessibility of the Websites, 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 their Websites and in the physical venues in 

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

55. The Websites were subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in July and October 

2022 and the expert determination was that the same access barriers that Plaintiff had initially 

encountered, as well as additional access barriers, existed. Defendants thus have made insufficient 

material changes or improvements to the Websites to enable their full use and enjoyment by, and 

accessibility to, blind and visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff. Defendants also have not

disclosed to the public any intended audits, changes, or lawsuits to correct the inaccessibility of

the Websites to visually disabled individuals, nor have they posted on the Websites effective

“accessibility” notices, statements, or policies to provide blind and visually disabled persons such

as Plaintiff with a viable alternative means to access and navigate the Websites. Defendants thus

have failed to make reasonable modifications in their 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

viable and effective “accessibility” notices, policies, or statements and the numerous access

barriers 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 Websites not fully accessible to users who are blind and visually

disabled, including Plaintiff.

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 13 of 19
14

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

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

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. Defendants have violated the ADA -- and continue to violate the ADA -- by 

denying access to the Websites 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 Websites are ongoing.

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

accommodation ensure that communication is effective. 

61. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 14 of 19
15

62. 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 

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).

63. 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.

64. As alleged hereinabove, the Websites have 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.

65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to provide ADA compliant 

Websites, with nexuses to the brick-and-mortar venues, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact by 

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

venues. 

66. Because of the inadequate development and administration of the Websites, 

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. 

67. 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 web accessibility policies to make publicly 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 15 of 19
16

Defendants’ policies to ensure persons with disabilities have full and equal access to and 

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

the Websites and the physical venues.

b) Require Defendants to take the necessary steps to make the Websites readily accessible 

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

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

disabilities to access the information available on the Websites 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 venues and becoming informed of and purchasing 

Defendants’ services and merchandise, and during that time period prior to the Websites 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 Websites and the physical 

venues. 

68. 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 the Websites are in violation of the ADA;

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 16 of 19
17

B. An Order requiring Defendants, by a date certain, to update the Websites, and continue 

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

that individuals with visual disabilities can access, and continue to access, the Websites

and effectively communicate with the Websites 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 Websites, 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 Websites;

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 their policies, practices 

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

Defendants to undertake and complete corrective procedures to its Websites;

F. An Order directing Defendants, by a date certain, to establish policies of web 

accessibility and accessibility features for the Websites to ensure effective 

communication for individuals who are visually disabled;

1 or similar.

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 17 of 19
18

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

the Websites 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 

programs or code for, or who publish final content to, the Websites 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 Websites to identify any 

instances where the Websites are 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 

Policies to ensure the persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of the 

Websites and shall accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means of 

submitting accessibility questions and problems; 

K. An award to Plaintiff of his 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 18 of 19
19

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

Case 9:22-cv-81651-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 19 of 19