UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

VICTOR ARIZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CASABLANCO MATTRESS & FURNITURE

GALLERY, LLC.,

Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Victor Ariza’s Motion for Default Final 

Judgment, ECF No. [11] (the “Motion”). 

Plaintiff Victor Ariza (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive 

relief, attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation expenses against Casablanco Mattress & Furniture 

Gallery, LLC (“Defendant”) for violations 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, in connection with the 

operation of Defendant’s associated website, https://casablancofurnituregallery.com. ECF No. [1]. 

Defendant was properly and timely served with the Complaint and Summons on November 28, 

2022. ECF No. [7]. Defendant failed to serve any response or answer to the Complaint and a 

Clerk’s Default was entered on December 30, 2022. ECF No. [9]. On January 11, 2023, the 

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. ECF No. [11]. 

The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is 

otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted. 

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 1 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

I. BACKGROUND

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been blind and 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. ECF No. [1] ¶ 5. As a result, Plaintiff 

uses screen reader software, which aurally presents the visual content of a webpage to a user, to 

interact with various websites. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9. 

Defendant is a Florida limited liability company that owns, operates, and controls a retail 

store selling mattresses and furniture under the name “Casablanco Mattress Furniture Gallery.” Id. 

¶ 10. The Casablanco Mattress Furniture Gallery store is open to the public. Id. Defendant also 

owns, controls, maintains, and operates an adjunct website, https://casablancofurnituregallery.com 

(the “Website”). Id. ¶ 12. One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information 

on the Defendant’s store’s location. Id. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through 

the Website. Id. In addition, the Website allows the public to apply online for credit to make 

purchases of merchandise available in the physical store and allows users to arrange in-store 

pickups of merchandise purchased online. Id. The Website also provides information on available 

products, services, tips and advice, editorials, sales campaigns, events, and other information that 

Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers. Id. ¶ 13.

In October 2022, Plaintiff attempted to use the Website to browse through the merchandise 

and online offers, and to learn about the merchandise, services, sales, discounts, and promotions 

being offered, to check store hours, and to check merchandise pricing in order to make a purchase 

through the Website or in the physical store. Id. ¶ 20. However, Plaintiff was unable to successfully 

navigate the Website using screen reader software. Id. ¶ 21. The Website also lacks prompting 

information and accommodations necessary to allow visually disabled individuals who use screen 

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 2 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

reader software to locate and accurately fill out online forms to purchase Defendant’s merchandise 

from the Website. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff was unable to find 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. Id. ¶ 23. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(“WCAG”) 2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility. Id. ¶ 36.

Defendant is, and at all relevant times has been, aware of the barriers which prevent 

individuals who are blind and visually disabled from accessing information on the Website. Id. 

¶ 41. Defendant also is, and at all relevant times has been, aware of the need to provide full access 

to all visitors to the Website. Id. ¶ 42.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides: “When a party against whom a judgment 

for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by 

affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” A district court may enter a default 

judgment against a properly served defendant who fails to defend or otherwise appear pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1343 

(M.D. Fla. 2003). 

The mere entry of a default by the Clerk does not, in itself, warrant the Court entering a 

default judgment. See Tyco Fire & Sec. LLC v. Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Rather, 

a court must ensure that there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment to be entered. 

Id. A default judgment has the effect of establishing as fact the plaintiff’s well-pled allegations 

and bars the defendant from contesting those facts on appeal. Id.

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 3 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

When a Defendant has not appeared, “all of Plaintiff’s well-pled allegations in the 

Complaint are deemed admitted.” Ordonez v. Icon Sky Holdings LLC, No. 10-60156-CIV, 2011 

WL 3843890, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2011) (citing Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 

(11th Cir. 1987)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. The ADA Claim

Title III of the ADA states that “[n]o 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). “Title 

III is meant to prevent owners of public places of accommodation from creating barriers that would 

restrict a disabled person’s ability to enjoy the defendant entity’s goods, services, and privileges.” 

Rendon v. Valleycrest Prods., 294 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002).

Upon review of Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court finds a sufficient basis in the Complaint 

to enter default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff alleges that the Website is inaccessible to 

blind and visually disabled individuals such as Plaintiff who must use screen reader software to 

successfully navigate the website. Id. at ¶¶ 19-23, 25, 27-34, 36-38. As such, the Court finds 

Plaintiff’s well-pled allegations sufficient to establish Defendant’s liability. 

“If the admitted facts in the Complaint establish liability, then the Court must determine 

appropriate damages.” Ordonez, 2011 WL 3843890, at *5. “Where all the essential evidence is on 

record, an evidentiary hearing on damages is not required.” Id. (citing SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 

1225, 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)). Here, Plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief only. 

The Court will grant that relief, as stated in the Conclusion of this Order.

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 4 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

B. Attorney’s fees

Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees in a total amount of $5,567.50, representing $2,2950.00 

billed by attorney Roderick Hannah, ECF No. [11-3] at 2, and $3,272.50 billed by attorney Pelayo 

Duran, ECF No. [11-4] at 2.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, “in any action . . . commenced pursuant to [the ADA], the 

court or agency, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a 

reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation expenses, and costs[.]” Congress thus expressly 

conferred upon federal courts broad discretion in determining when an award of attorney’s fees is 

appropriate. See Tufaro v. Willie, 756 F. Supp. 556, 560 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 

449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980)).

In Norman v. Housing Auth. of City of Montgomery, the Eleventh Circuit provided the 

framework within which courts may analyze the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees. 

836 F.2d 1292, 1292 (11th Cir. 1988). First, a district court must determine the lodestar figure by 

multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. at 1299. “A 

reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar 

services, by lawyers of reasonable comparable skills, experience, and reputation.” Id. The party 

who applies for attorney’s fees bears the burden of submitting satisfactory evidence to establish 

both that the requested rate is in accord with the prevailing market rate and that the hours are 

reasonable. Id. at 1303. 

After calculating the lodestar fee, the court may then proceed with an analysis of whether 

to adjust the amount upward or downward. In making this determination, the court may depend 

upon a number of factors, including the quality of the results, and representation in the litigation. 

Id. at 1302. “If the result was excellent, then the court should compensate for all hours reasonably 

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 5 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

6

expended.” Id. (quoting Popham v. City of Kennesaw, 820 F.2d 1570, 1580 (11th Cir. 1987)). But 

“[i]f the result was partial or limited success, then the lodestar must be reduced to an amount that

is not excessive.” Id. (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1983)). Further, a 

“reduction is appropriate if the relief, however significant, is limited in comparison to the scope of 

the litigation as a whole.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435. As such, the focus should be “on the 

significance of overall results as a function of total reasonable hours.” Popham, 820 F.2d at 1578.

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees and accompanying 

exhibits. In determining the appropriate hourly rate for Plaintiff’s attorneys, the Court considers 

the factors elucidated in Norman, case law, as well as its own knowledge and experience. 

Considering the above factors and Defendant’s failure to object, the Court finds the requested rates 

are reasonable. Hansen v. Deercreek Plaza, LLC, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2006) 

(“Satisfactory evidence may also include citations to prior precedents showing reasonable rate 

adjudications for the fee applicant, for comparable attorneys, or for comparable cases.” (quotation 

marks omitted)). The hourly rates for the attorneys ($425) are not excessive. The Court further 

concludes that because Plaintiff achieved the full measure of success sought, the award of fees 

“will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation[.]” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435. 

Accordingly, the Court awards the attorneys the attorneys’ fees requested. 

C. Taxable costs and expert fee

Plaintiff also seeks $496.40 in taxable costs, consisting of the case filing fee ($402.00), the 

cost for service of process of the Complaint ($58.40), and the costs for copies of papers that were 

necessarily obtained for use in this case ($36.00); ECF No. [11] at 22-23, and litigation expenses 

in the form of the fee for his expert Robert Moody, in the amount of $4,275.00, id. at 23. In support 

of his requests, Plaintiff attaches Mr. Moody’s curriculum vitae and invoice for services, and 

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 6 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

7

payment records associated with the other costs incurred. ECF Nos. [11-3], [11-5], [11-6], [11-7], 

[11-8]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these 

rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed 

to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). A prevailing party is “[a] party in whose favor a 

judgment is rendered, regardless of the amount of damages awarded.” Buckhannon Bd. & Care 

Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001). “Such costs, 

however, may not exceed those permitted.” Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265, 1277 (11th Cir. 

2007).

Based upon a review of the materials submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the 

requested costs and expert fees are reasonable and recoverable. See Goodman v. Sperduti Enterps., 

Inc., No. 08-62096-CIV, 2009 WL 3200681, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2009) (“There is no question 

that Plaintiff is entitled to the cost of the filing fee because it falls into one of the categories of 

reimbursable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920[.]”); EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 623 (11th Cir. 

2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover $4,771.40 in taxable costs and litigation 

expenses, including service of process fee ($58.40), filing fee ($402.00), expert fees ($4,275.00), 

and copy costs ($36.00).

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Motion, ECF No. [11], is GRANTED.

2. The Court declares and finds that Defendant’s website, 

https://casablancofurnituregallery.com, which acts as a point of sale for Defendant’s 

merchandise that is also sold in and from Defendant’s physical store, contains access 

barriers and is not fully and equally accessible to blind and visually disabled users such 

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 7 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

8

as Plaintiff, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§12181-12189 (“ADA”).

3. Defendant shall not, no later than six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, deny 

any individuals with disabilities, including the Plaintiff, the opportunity to access, 

participate in, and benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 

programs, activities, and accommodations provided through its website. The website 

must be accessible by individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets, 

and smart phones.

4. Defendant shall not, no later than six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, provide 

individuals with disabilities, including Plaintiff, an unequal opportunity to access, 

participate in, and benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 

programs, activities, and accommodations provided through its website 

https://casablancofurnituregallery.com. The website must be accessible by individuals 

with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets, and smart phones.

5. No later than six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, Defendant shall adopt and 

implement a Web Accessibility Policy which ensures that its website conforms with 

the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0, Level AA criteria.

6. No later than six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, Defendant shall require 

any third-party vendors who participate on its website to be fully accessible to the 

disabled by substantially conforming with WCAG 2.0, Level AA criteria.

7. No later than six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, Defendant shall make 

publicly available and directly link from the https://casablancofurnituregallery.com 

homepage, a statement of Defendant’s Accessibility Policy to ensure that persons with 

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 8 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

9

disabilities, such as Plaintiff, have full and equal access to and enjoyment of its website 

and shall accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means, such as a 

specifically dedicated and manned telephone number, of submitting accessibility 

questions and problems. 

8. No later than six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, and at least once yearly 

thereafter, Defendant shall provide mandatory web accessibility training to all 

employees who write or develop programs or code for, or who publish final content to, 

the https://casablancofurnituregallery.com website on how to conform all web content 

and services with WCAG 2.0 Level AA criteria.

9. No later than six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, and at least once every 

three (3) months thereafter, Defendant shall conduct automated accessibility tests of its 

website to identify any instances where the website is no longer in conformance with 

WCAG 2.0 Level AA. Defendant will send a copy of the quarterly reports to Plaintiff’s 

counsel for review.

10. If Plaintiff believes this Order has been violated, he shall give written notice 

(including reasonable particulars) to Defendant of such violation. Defendant shall have 

thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the written notice to investigate and correct 

any alleged violations.

11. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expert 

witness expenses under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12205. Based upon a review of the 

materials submitted by Plaintiff in support of his Motion, the Court finds that the 

requested $425.00 hourly rate for Plaintiff’s attorneys is reasonable, and that Plaintiff’s 

claimed attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,567.50 for 13.1 hours of attorney time, 

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 9 of 10
Case No. 22-cv-23759-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

10

costs in the amount of $496.40, and expert fees in the amount of $4,275.00 are 

reasonable and recoverable. Plaintiff is thus entitled to an award of $10,338.90, for 

which let execution issue forthwith.

12. If Defendant fails to correct the violations, Plaintiff may then seek relief from the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 17, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Casablanco Mattress & Furniture Gallery, LLC

c/o Jose M. Blanco III, registered agent

9195 SW 40th Street

Miami, FL 33165

Case 1:22-cv-23759-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 10 of 10