1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA, CASE NO.

 Plaintiff,

vs.

COLE HAAN COMPANY STORE, LLC.,

a Foreign Limited Liability Company

D/B/A COLE HAAN

Defendant.

____________________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

 Plaintiff, ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant, 

COLE HAAN COMPANY STORE, LLC., a Foreign Limited Liability Company d/b/a COLE 

HAAN (hereinafter referred to as “COLE HAAN”), for declaratory and injunctive relief, and 

damages, and alleges as follows:

This action is brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), that is 

codified in 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189. 

1) This action is also brought pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Part 36.

2) This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, as provided 

in 28 U.S.C. §1331 and the provisions of the ADA.

3) Furthermore, because this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim, the Court has 

supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s common law tort claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 1 of 26
2

4) Plaintiff is sui juris, and he is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments Act 

of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (“ADAAA”).

5) Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

6) Plaintiff desires to prevent discrimination and demands equal access to Defendant’s 

internet website to purchase a backpack.

7) Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for trespass against the Plaintiff’s 

computer. The computer is Plaintiff’s personal property, and a claim for trespass attached to same.

8) The Defendant is also liable for compensatory damages to Plaintiff as a result of the 

trespass to Plaintiff’s personal property.

9) The remedies provided under common law for trespass are not exclusive, and same may 

be sought in connection with suits brought under the ADA.

10) Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, Miami-Dade Division, since all events, 

actions, injuries, and damages complained of herein occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

11) Furthermore, Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County which falls within the Miami 

Division of the Southern District of Florida.

12) At all relevant times, Plaintiff is and was visually impaired and has Leber Congenital 

Amaurosis since birth that substantially impairs Plaintiff’s vision whereby his vision fluctuates 

from 20/250 to 20/800. 

13) Plaintiff’s visual impairment interferes with his day-to-day activities and causes limitations 

in visualizing his environment. As such, Plaintiff 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 in 42 U.S.C. 3602, §802(h). 

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 2 of 26
3

14) In addition, Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons. As 

such 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.

15) Plaintiff is limited in the performance of major life activities due to his visual disability 

and he requires assistive technologies, auxiliary aids, and services for effective communication, 

including communication in connection with his use of a computer.

16) Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use 

his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader 

software, and other technology and assistance. In order to assist him, Plaintiff uses NVDA screen 

reader software that is readily available commercially. As background, screen reader software 

translates the visual internet into an auditory equivalent. The software reads the content of a 

webpage to the user at a rapid pace.

17) “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 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 3 of 26
4

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).

18) 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.

19) Defendant, COLE HAAN, is a foreign limited liability company authorized to do business 

and doing business in the State of Florida.

20) Defendant, COLE HAAN, is a company that sells men’s and women’s shoes, bags, and 

accessories. There is a retail location in Miami-Dade County.

21) At all times material hereto, Defendant was and still is a private entity which owns and 

operates retail locations under the brand name “COLE HAAN”. The stores are open to the public, 

and each of Defendant’s locations is defined as a “public accommodation" within the meaning of 

Title III of the ADA because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “[A] bakery, 

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).

22) Because Defendants are a store open to the public, each of Defendants’ physical stores is 

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

§12181(7)(B), and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 36.

23) At all times material hereto, Defendant was and still is an organization owning and 

operating the website located at https://www.colehaan.com/. Since the website is open through 

the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an 

intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant’s brick and mortar locations, the

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 4 of 26
5

Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the 

requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant’s physical stores by providing 

information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to 

its customers about its physical locations.

24) Since the website allows the public the ability to view the products available at Defendant’s 

locations, purchase products, through Defendant’s website, subscribe to Defendant’s newsletter, 

create an account and register to track orders, create a wish list, and learn the story behind 

Defendant’s brand, the website is an extension of, and gateway to, Defendant’s physical stores 

which are places of public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E). By this nexus 

between Defendants’ retail store locations and the Website, and the fact that the Website clearly 

provides support for and is connected to Defendants’ stores for its operation and use, the Website 

is an intangible service, privilege, and advantage of Defendants’ brick-and-mortar stores that must 

comply with all requirements of the ADA. The Website 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 stores, which are places of public accommodations subject 

to the requirements of the ADA.

25) Plaintiff sought to, seeks to and intends to patronize, in the near future once the Website’s 

access barriers are removed or remedied, one or more of Defendants’ physical retail locations, 

check store hours and product pricing and place online orders. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends 

to monitor the Website in the near future as a tester to ascertain whether it has been remedied and 

updated to interact properly with screen reader software.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 5 of 26
6

26) Traveling outside of his home as a visually disabled individual is often a difficult, 

hazardous, frightening, frustrating, and confusing experience, thus the opportunity to shop and preshop Defendants’ products, plan his visits, and to compare products, services, prices, sales, 

discounts, and promotions are important and necessary accommodations for Plaintiff because 

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.

27) During the month of November 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 merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions being offered, learn about the brick-and-mortar 

location, check store hours, and check product pricing with the intent to make a purchase through 

the Website or in one of the physical locations and with the intent to make a purchase through the 

website or at one of Defendant’s physical stores. 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.

28) Plaintiff utilized NVDA (“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. Plaintiff attempted to purchase clothing on 

Defendant’s website. However, the Plaintiff was not able to freely and fully use Defendant’s 

website because it contains access barriers that make it inaccessible to persons with disabilities, 

and for which there is no reasonable accommodation for the Plaintiff.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 6 of 26
7

29) 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:

System settings while doing the review:

Operating system: Windows 10

Browser: Google Chrome v. 106.0.5249.119

Screen Reader: NVDA v. 2022.3

List of violations encountered:

Violation: When a user is trying to sign up for a 10% discount and there’s an input error 

with the email address, the error message is not identified in an audible format.

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 3.3.1 Error Identification (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zsj268imfwodvsn/2022_10_17_174925_01.mp4?dl=0

Violation: The link for changing the shipping country and currency (represented by a 

flag), has no label. The screen reader renders it an unlabeled graphic link. No further 

audible instructions are provided regarding the link.

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/exwnay1dwwhd6xm/2022_10_17_174925_02.mp4?dl=0

Violation: Within the main menu, the search functionality is not operable when using the 

keyboard. When cycling through the menu options it jumps from the Sustainability link 

to the View Cart link, skipping Search.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 7 of 26
8

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 2.1.1 Keyboard (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1zz4l3iy2q41vv/2022_10_17_174925_03.mp4?dl=0

Violation: A mechanism (e.g., skip to content) is not available to bypass blocks of 

content that are repeated on multiple Web pages (e.g., main menu).

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sq41iuje3934m96/2022_10_17_174925_04.mp4?dl=0

Violation: The Hide Filters link shown at the top of search results has no label. The 

screen reader renders it a clickable link. No further audible instructions are provided 

regarding the link.

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ki2wdqd0s134sm/2022_10_17_174925_05.mp4?dl=0

Violation: When a user adds an item to the shopping bag the focus order fails to shift to 

the modal that displays the content of the bag and provides checkout options. The 

keyboard operability remains active on the product page instead.

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 2.4.3 Focus Order (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence: 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ec8q0kktjxaf19c/2022_10_17_174925_06.mp4?dl=0

Violation: When a user enters an incorrect or invalid promo code, the error message is 

not identified in an audible format.

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 3.3.1 Error Identification (Level A).

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 8 of 26
9

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9wlzzweoxkiyjls/2022_10_17_174925_07.mp4?dl=0

Violation: When a user enters an incorrect or invalid gift card, the error message is not 

identified in an audible format.

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 3.3.1 Error Identification (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulxqoe77djkbt44/2022_10_17_174925_08.mp4?dl=0

Violation: When a user enters incorrect or invalid credit card information, the error 

message is not identified in an audible format.

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 3.3.1 Error Identification (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5pl2iwmr6i80rox/2022_10_17_174925_09.mp4?dl=0

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/79o8dfpxvd71q3v/2022_10_12_132432_12.mp4?dl=0

Violation: When trying to enter the credit card number using the keyboard, instead of 

registering the numbers being entered, (e.g., 4 or 2) the input is processed as a request for 

a heading, prompting an audible label of no next heading at level 4 or no next heading at 

level 2.

Applicable WCAG 2.1 Standard at Issue: Standard 2.1.1 Keyboard (Level A).

Screen Capture Evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2g2hwsd1qn1w3w/2022_10_12_132432_13.mp4?dl=0

30) Although the Website appeared to have an “accessibility” statement displayed and an 

“accessibility” widget/plugin added, the “accessibility” statement and widget/plugin, when tested, 

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 9 of 26
10

still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually 

disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although he attempted 

to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through 

the “accessibility” statement and the widget/plugin to enable him to quickly, fully, and effectively 

navigate the Website.

31) 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 merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions, as provided at the Website and in the physical 

locations as the non-visually disabled public.

32) Plaintiff desires and intends, in the near future once the Website’s access barriers are 

removed or remedied, to patronize one or more of Defendants’ physical stores and to use the 

Website, but he is presently unable to 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 Website due to his severe visual disability 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 Defendants’ intentional acts, omissions, 

policies, and practices as set forth herein unless properly enjoined by this Court.

33) On information and belief, Defendants have not initiated a Web Accessibility Policy to 

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

34) On information and belief, Defendants have not instituted a Web Accessibility Committee 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 10 of 26
11

35) On information and belief, Defendants have not designated an employee as a Web 

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

disabilities.

36) On information and belief, Defendants have not instituted a Web Accessibility User 

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

disabilities.

37) On information and belief, Defendants have not instituted a User Accessibility Testing 

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

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

39) On information and belief, Defendants have not instituted an Automated Web Accessibility 

Testing program.

40) Defendants have not created and instituted an effective Specialized Customer Assistance 

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

41) Defendants have not created and instituted on the Website a useful or accessible page for 

individuals with disabilities, nor displayed a link and information hotline, nor created an 

information portal explaining when and how Defendants will have the Website, applications, and 

digital assets accessible to the visually disabled or blind community.

42) The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 

Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility.

43) Defendants have 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 Defendants’ products offered on the Website and in the physical stores from 

their homes.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 11 of 26
12

44) 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 

Website and their physical stores in contravention of the ADA.

45) 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. 

46) 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.

47) Defendants are, and at all relevant times have 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.

48) Defendants are, and at all relevant times have been, aware of the need to provide full access 

to all visitors to the Website.

49) The barriers that exist on the Website result in discriminatory and unequal treatment of 

individuals with visual disabilities, including Plaintiff.

50) 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 its website access and operation.

51) Notice to Defendants is not required because of Defendants’ failure to cure the violations.

52) Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA is right and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§2201 and 2202.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 12 of 26
13

53) 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

54) Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 53 as if set forth fully herein.

55) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B), Defendant is a public accommodation under the ADA 

and thus is subject to the ADA.

56) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B), the Website is covered under the ADA because it 

provides the general public with the ability to view the products available at Defendant’s locations, 

purchase products through Defendant’s website, subscribe to Defendant’s newsletter, create an 

account and register to track orders, create a wish list, and learn the story behind Defendant’s 

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

advantage of Defendants’ physical locations. Further, the Website also serves to augment 

Defendants’ physical stores by providing the public information about the stores and by educating 

the public as to Defendants’ brand and available products merchandise sold through the Website 

and in the physical stores.

57) 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.

58) 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, 

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 13 of 26
14

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

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

59) 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.”

60) The Website must comply with the ADA, but it does not as specifically alleged hereinabove 

and below.

61) 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 Defendants 

have made available to the public on the Website and in their physical stores in violation of 42 

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

62) The Website was subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in November and the expert 

determination was that the same access barriers that Plaintiff had initially encountered, as well as 

numerous additional access barriers, existed. Defendants thus have 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. Also, when the Website was visited by 

the expert, although the Website appeared to have an “accessibility” statement and widget/plugin 

linked on and displayed from its home page, the “accessibility” statement and widget/plugin, when 

tested, still could not be effectively used or accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and 

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 14 of 26
15

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 and useful “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 and the numerous access barriers as set forth in the Declaration of 

Plaintiff’s expert, Raul Marquez, attached hereto 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.

63) 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.

64) 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.

65) Defendants have violated the ADA -- and continue to violate the ADA -- by denying access 

to the Website by individuals such as Plaintiff with visual disabilities who require the assistance 

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 15 of 26
16

of interface with screen reader software to comprehend and access internet websites. These 

violations within the Website are ongoing.

66) The ADA requires that public accommodations and places of public accommodation 

ensure that communication is effective.

67) 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.

68) 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).

69) 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.

70) 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.

71) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to provide an ADA compliant 

Website, with a nexus to their brick-and-mortar stores, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact by 

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 16 of 26
17

being denied full access to, enjoyment of, and communication with Defendants’ Website and its 

physical stores.

72) 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.

73) 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: 

i. Require Defendants 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 Defendants’ 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 locations.

ii. Require Defendants 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 effective 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

iii. 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’ stores and becoming informed of and 

purchasing Defendants’ 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 17 of 26
18

communicate for such goods and services made available to the general public through the 

Website and the physical stores.

iv. 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.

74) 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 its website, and continue 

to monitor and update its website on an ongoing basis, to remove barriers in order that 

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

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 its website, wherein the logo 1would 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;

1

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 18 of 26
19

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 insure 

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 its website to insure 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 

programs or code for, or who publish final content to, Defendant’s 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 its 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 19 of 26
20

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

directly link from its website homepage, a statement of Defendant’s Accessibility Policy 

to ensure the persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of its 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 and costs pursuant to in 42 

U.S.C. §§12181-12189, and pursuant to such other laws and statutes that may apply, and 

further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 

COUNT II – TRESPASS

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 53 as if set forth herein. 

75. Defendant’s website contains software analytics. Since Plaintiff has navigated 

Defendant’s website as stated herein, Plaintiff’s computer and the personal information and 

browsing history stored therein, has suffered a trespass by Defendant.

76. Plaintiff never consented to and was unaware that Defendant’s website was placing 

software on her computer. 

77. The “pop-up” or banner notice that appears on Defendant’s website does not properly 

audibilize the cookies policy in a way where a visually disabled person like the Plaintiff can 

properly understand or give informed consent to allow tracking cookies to be placed on his 

computer. 

78) Defendant committed common law trespass in violation of Florida law against Plaintiff 

because Plaintiff did not consent to the placement of tracking and information securing software 

on her personal computer, which was done without her knowledge and consent.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 20 of 26
21

79) Defendant’s trespass has damaged Plaintiff by affecting the condition and value of her 

computer. 

80) On its website, Defendant has an internet privacy policy section that can only be accessed 

by clicking a barely visible section at the bottom of the page called “Cookies Policy”, providing 

that they use cookies and similar technologies to collect a consumer’s information and they obtain 

non-public information from their users for their own advertising and marketing purposes by 

placing software on its website that collects a website user’s preferences and internet browsing 

habits as follows:

Cookies are small text files that can be used by websites to make a user's experience 

more efficient.

The law states that we can store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for 

the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies we need your permission.

This site uses different types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services 

that appear on our pages.

You can at any time change or withdraw your consent from the Cookie Declaration on 

our website.

Learn more about who we are, how you can contact us and how we process personal data 

in our Privacy Policy.

Your consent applies to the following domains: www.colehaan.com

Cookie declaration last updated on 9/25/22 by Cookiebot:

Necessary (57)

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 21 of 26
22

Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page 

navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function 

properly without these cookies.

Name Provider Purpose

[SessionID#27] Paypal Used by PayPal.

__cf_bm [x4] Google

se.sp.colehaan.com

assets.sitescdn.net

Vimeo

This cookie is used to distinguish between humans and bots. 

This is beneficial for the website, in order to make valid reports 

on the use of their website.

__cq_bc Salesforce Used by Cole Haan to display product recommendations.

__cq_dnt www.colehaan.com This opt-out cookie identifies if the visitor has deselected any 

cookies, trackers or other audience targeting tools.

__cq_seg [x2] Salesforce Used by Cole Haan to display related products.

__cq_uuid Salesforce Used by Cole Haan to display related products.

__paypal_sdk_storag

e__

Paypal This cookie is necessary for the PayPal login-function on the 

website.

__pxvid client.px-cloud.net Pending

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 22 of 26
23

Name Provider Purpose

_pxff_idp_c client.px-cloud.net Pending

_sr_sp_id.1639 Shoprunner Used by Shop Runner.

_sr_sp_ses.1639 Shoprunner Used by Shop Runner.

3060738.3440491 Affirm Used by Affirm.

ABCDEFGHIJKLM

NOPQRSTUVWXY

Zabcdefghijklmnopqr

stuvwxyz0123456789

+/

www.colehaan.com Used to encrypt and contain visitor data - This is necessary for 

the security of the user data.

botCookie colehaan.com Used to thwart bots.

CookieConsent Cookiebot Stores the user's cookie consent state for the current domain

cookietest www.colehaan.com This cookie is used to determine if the visitor has accepted the 

cookie consent box.

cq.anchor Salesforce Used by Cole Haan to display product recommendations.

cq.recoUUID Salesforce Used by Cole Haan to display product recommendations.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 23 of 26
24

Name Provider Purpose

cq.viewCategory Salesforce Used by Cole Haan to display product recommendations.

cq.viewReco Salesforce Used by Cole Haan to display product recommendations.

cqcid www.colehaan.com Registers whether the user is logged in. This allows the website 

owner to make parts of the website inaccessible, based on the 

user's log-in status.

DUMMY_COOKIE Affirm Used by Affirm.

dw_dnt www.colehaan.com Collects information on user preferences and/or interaction 

with web-campaign content - This is used on 

CRM-campaign-platform used by website owners for 

promoting events or products.

dwac_# www.colehaan.com Used by Cole Haan

dwanonymous_UID{

32}

www.colehaan.com This cookie contains a specific ID on the visitor in order to 

distinguish visitors. This information allows the website to 

remember the visitor’s preferences, settings and secures the 

functionality of the shopping basket.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 24 of 26
25

Name Provider Purpose

forterToken www.colehaan.com Used by Cole Haan for fraud analysis.

GE_C_HCOUNT Global-E Pending

GE_CART_TOKEN Global-E This cookie holds the card details, in case the need to recreate 

the cart.

GlobalE_CT_Data Global-E Sets a unique ID for the session. This allows the website to 

obtain data on visitor behaviour for statistical purposes.

GlobalE_CT_Data Global-E This cookie holds a unique client identifier for a customer (per 

browser), which helps Global-e to provide information about 

the client behavior on a Global-e enabled website.

GlobalE_Data [x2] www.colehaan.com

Global-E

Used by Cole Haan to allow international commerce.

81) Due to Plaintiff’s disability, he could not understand Defendant’s website and he could not 

give informed consent to Defendant’s installation of data and information tracking software on his 

computer. Defendant also could not give informed consent to Defendant’s collection of his 

browsing history and the placement of analytics on his computer.

82) Thus, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to redress Defendant’s knowing and reckless 

disregard for Plaintiff’s right to exclude others from his computer and determine which programs 

should be installed and operated on his computer.

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 25 of 26
26

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s damages, interest, 

costs, and such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff requests a jury trial.

Submitted by:

Mendez Law Offices, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

P.O. BOX 228630

Miami, Florida 33172

Telephone: 305.264.9090

Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474

Email:info@mendezlawoffices.com

By: /s/ 

DIEGO GERMAN MENDEZ, ESQ.

FL BAR NO.: 52748

Adams & Associates, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101

Miami Lakes, FL 33014

Telephone: 786-290-1963

Facsimile: 305-824-3868

Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com

By: /s/ 

RICHARD J. ADAMS, ESQ.

FL BAR NO.: 770434

Case 1:22-cv-23944-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 26 of 26