Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO.:

JAMES WATSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

WILSON/WADDELL COMPANY, LLC., 

d/b/a J. Mark’s Restaurant and Bar

Defendant. 

 / 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, James Watson (“Plaintiff”) hereby sues Defendant, Wilson/Waddell Company, 

LLC., doing business as J. Mark’s Restaurant and Bar for Injunctive Relief, attorney’s fees, 

litigation expenses and costs pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (“ADA”), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, et seq. 

1. Venue lies in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 

Local Rule 3.1, in that the original transaction or occurrence giving rise to this cause of action 

occurred in this District.

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, this Court has been given 

original jurisdiction over actions which arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202.

3. Plaintiff is a Florida resident, lives in Miami-Dade County, is sui juris, and qualifies 

as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Plaintiff is legally blind and a member 

of a protected class under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)-(2), the regulations implementing the 

ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq. and in 42 U.S.C. 3602, §802(h). Plaintiff is substantially 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 1 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant 

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 2 of 10 

limited in the major life activity of seeing. Plaintiff’s disability is defined in 28 C.F.R. 

§36.105(b)(2). 

4. Plaintiff uses the internet and a mobile device to help him navigate a world of 

goods, products and services like the sighted. The internet, websites and mobile applications 

provide him a window into the world that he would not otherwise have. He brings this action 

against Defendant for offering and maintaining a mobile website (software that is intended to run 

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

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

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

website information which is specifically designed for the visually impaired. 

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

is a “tester” for the purpose of asserting his civil rights. As such, he monitors mobile websites to 

ensure and determine whether places of public accommodation and/or their mobile websites are in 

compliance with the ADA. 

6. Defendant, Wilson/Waddell Company, LLC., is a Florida limited liability company 

which owns and operates a place of public accommodation which is a restaurant, located at 1490 

NE 23 Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33062. A locally owned and operated neighborhood 

restaurant and bar where locals can go to dine in a comfortable and relaxing atmosphere, open to 

the public. As such, it is a Place of Public Accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III 

of the ADA and it’s implementing regulation as defined by 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B), §12182, and 

28 C.F.R. §36.104(2). Defendant’s restaurant is also referenced as “place of public 

accommodation”, “J. Mark’s” or “restaurant.”

7. Defendant is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title III 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 2 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant 

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 3 of 10 

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

establishment serving food or drink” and as “a place of entertainment” pursuant to §§12181(7)(B) 

&(C), §12182, and 28 C.F.R. §§36.104(2) & (3). 

8. Subsequent to the effective date of the ADA, Defendant constructed, or caused to be 

constructed, the http://www.jmarksrestaurant.com/ mobile website (hereinafter “mobile website”) 

which is designed for the general public to access on their mobile devices (phones, tablets). This 

mobile website supports, is an extension of, is in conjunction with, is complementary and 

supplemental to Defendant, “J. Mark’s”. The mobile website delineates the goods, services, 

accommodations, privileges, benefits and facilities available to patrons at “J. Mark’s” restaurant. 

9. The mobile website is offered as a way for the public to become familiar with “J. 

Mark’s”, menu selections, restaurant hours of operation and location. The mobile website provides 

a link to reserve a table for dining within the restaurant, and contact information for the public 

questions and inquire, as well as other information “J. Mark’s” restaurants seek to communicate 

to the public. 

10. The mobile website is offered by Defendant as a way for the public to obtain 

information about “J. Mark’s” menu selections, wine list, hours of operation and restaurant

location. The mobile website also provides a link to the “J. Mark’s” Facebook and Twitter pages 

and provides other information Defendant seeks to communicate to the public. The mobile website 

also provides the public the ability to send messages and contact the restaurant and the ability to 

buy gift cards for use at the restaurant. By the provision of menu selection, the ability to make 

reservations, and information for any inquires, the mobile website is an integral part of the goods 

and services offered by Defendant on behalf of “J. Mark’s” restaurant. By this nexus, the mobile 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 3 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant 

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 4 of 10 

website is characterized as a Place of Public Accommodation subject to Title III of the ADA1, 42 

U.S.C. § 12181(7)(B) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104(2). 

11. Defendant’s mobile website allows mobile device users to use a mobile platform 

through a connection to Wi-Fi or cellular data so that users can manage their dining choice from 

their mobile device. Defendant has subjected itself to the ADA because its mobile website is 

offered as a tool to promote, advertise and sell products and services of the restaurant. As a result, 

Defendant’s mobile website must interact with the public, which includes Plaintiff (a visually 

impaired person). Therefore, Defendant’s mobile website must comply with the ADA, which 

means it must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities and may not deny full and equal 

enjoyment of the goods and services afforded to the general public.2

12. Defendant’s mobile website does not properly interact with VoiceOver screen 

reader software technology in a manner that allows Plaintiff (a visually impaired person) to 

comprehend the mobile website and does not provide other means of accommodation. 

13. Like the seeing community, Plaintiff would like the opportunity to be able to use 

the http://www.jmarksrestaurant.com/ mobile website to test whether he can comprehend the “J. 

Mark’s” restaurant menu selections or make reservations and to test for the ability to order food 

1 Ensuring Web Accessibility for people with disabilities has become a priority for the Department 

of Justice. The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has taken the position that both State 

and local government websites (Title II) and the websites of private entities that are public 

accommodations (Title III) are covered by the ADA. On March 18, 2022, the DOJ issued guidance 

on Web Accessibility, see https://beta.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/. The guidance states that 

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

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

website barriers must be identified, prevented, and removed so that all Title II and Title III entities 

offer websites that are accessible to people with disabilities. 

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

devices in 2021. Therefore, Defendant knew or should have known that potential customers would 

be using the mobile version of its website and provided accessibility for blind users.

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 4 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant 

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 5 of 10 

for pick up at the restaurant location and test for the ability to order gift cards for use at the 

restaurant. However, unless Defendant is required to eliminate the barriers to Plaintiff’s ability to 

communicate with Defendant through the mobile website, Plaintiff will continue to deny full and 

equal access to the mobile website and will be deterred from fully using that mobile website.

14. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations on the mobile website and is aware 

that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize that mobile website as long as those violations 

exist.

15. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs 

alleged herein and this action is his only means to secure adequate redress from Defendant’s 

practice.

16. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations. Enforcement of the rights of Plaintiff is right and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 

2202. 

17. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the civil rights law office of J. Courtney 

Cunningham, PLLC and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of this 

cause, including costs and expenses incurred. Plaintiff is entitled to recover those attorney’s fees, 

costs and expenses from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505. 

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF TITLE III OF THE ADA

18. The ADA requires that Public Accommodations (and Places of Public 

Accommodation) are required to ensure that communication is effective, which includes the 

provision of auxiliary aids and services for such purpose. 

19. According to 28 C.F.R. Section 36.303(b)(1), auxiliary aids and services includes 

“voice, text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems.” 28 C.F.R. Section 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 5 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant 

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 6 of 10 

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

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

20. 28 C.F.R. Section 36.303(c)(1)(ii) specifically states that public accommodations 

must furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective 

communication with individuals with disabilities. “In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and 

services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect 

the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability.” 

21. 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 requires places of public accommodation to be designed, 

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

22. The http://www.jmarksrestaurant.com/ mobile website has been designed to 

integrate with “J. Mark’s” through the provision of menus, the ability to make a reservation, the 

ability to purchase gift cards for use at the restaurants and the ability to inquire about private events 

online. Defendant has extended “J. Mark’s” restaurant into individual persons' homes and portable 

devices wherever located through the mobile website which is a service, facility, privilege, 

advantage, benefit and accommodation of its restaurant. 

23. Plaintiff attempted to access and test the mobile website but was unable to do so 

because the mobile website contains barriers to effective communication for visually impaired 

individuals such as himself. Plaintiff continues to be unable to effectively communicate with 

Defendant through the mobile website and understand the content therein because numerous 

portions of the mobile website do not interface with mobile VoiceOver screen reader software.

Specifically, features of the mobile website that are inaccessible to Plaintiff (a VoiceOver screen 

reader software user) include, but are not limited to, the following (citing the WCAG 2.1 Level A 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 6 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 7 of 10

and AA Guidelines): 

i. Guideline 2.4.3. Focus order is violated. Focus doesn't move to the main menu icon, and 

it's not announced. Mobile SRUs therefore cannot open the main menu so they don't hear, 

nor can they open any of the menu items such as the Gift Cards link or the Special offers. 

After the Contact icon is announced, then focus skips over the menu button and moves to 

the main page content. A footer isn't available on mobile nor is search, so users can only 

access a few pages on this website.

ii. Guideline 2.4.4 – Link Purpose (In Context). After the JMarks logo is announced, then 

"Jmarks FL link" is announced two times. Mobile SRUs won't be able to tell the destination 

or purpose of these links.

iii. Guideline 4.1.2 – Name, Role, Value is violated. Mobile SRUs can only access the 

'Appetizers' menu. An additional 12 menus are displayed if a user presses the '+' button, 

but this button isn't labeled or announced. As shown in the VoiceOver speech viewer, only 

a question mark is displayed when a user navigates to the menu expand button.

iv. Guideline 1.4.5 – Images of Text is violated. Mobile SRUs cannot submit the Contact form 

because the content in the CAPTCHA image isn't announced. Only "CAPTCHA image" is 

announced so users cannot hear any of the text content in the image and therefore cannot 

submit the form.

24. As the owner and/or operator and/or beneficiary of a mobile website which serves 

as a gateway to Defendant’s “J. Mark’s” restaurant (for purchasing food for pick up at that 

restaurant) Defendant is required to comply with the ADA and the provisions cited above. This 

includes Defendant’s obligation to create, maintain and operate a mobile website that is accessible 

to Plaintiff so that he (as a visually impaired person) can enjoy full and equal access to the mobile 

website and the content therein, including the ability comprehend menu selections and to test for 

his ability to purchase food online. 

25. Defendant has violated the ADA by failing to interface the mobile website which 

is directly linked to its restaurant with VoiceOver screen reader software utilized by Plaintiff (a 

visually impaired individual) (reference violations delineated within paragraph 23) either directly 

or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements. Defendant’s violations have resulted in 

Defendant denying Plaintiff effective communication on the basis of his disability in accordance 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 7 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 8 of 10

with 28 C.F.R. Section 36.303 et seq.

26. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations within the mobile website and is

aware that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize and/or test the mobile website as long 

as those violations exist.

27. As the result of the barriers to communication which are present within the mobile 

website and by continuing to operate and/or benefit from the mobile website with such barriers, 

Defendant has contributed to Plaintiff's frustration, humiliation, sense of isolation and segregation 

and has deprived Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges 

and/or accommodations available to the general public. By encountering the barriers to effective 

communication within the mobile website and knowing that it would be a futile gesture to attempt 

to utilize the mobile website, Plaintiff has been deprived of the meaningful choice of freely visiting 

and utilizing the same accommodations readily available to the general public and has been 

deterred and discouraged from doing so. By benefiting from and/or maintaining a mobile website 

with barriers to effective communication, Defendant has deprived Plaintiff the equality of 

opportunity which it offers to the general public.

28. Plaintiff has suffered (and will continue to suffer) direct and indirect injury as a 

result of Defendant’s violations until Defendant is compelled to comply with the requirements of 

the ADA and conform the mobile website to WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guidelines.

29. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination 

from Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to its mobile website. Plaintiff has 

reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation 

of the ADA by Defendant when he visits the mobile website to test for compliance with the ADA. 

Plaintiff desires to access the mobile website to avail himself of the benefits, advantages, goods 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 8 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 9 of 10

and services therein, and/or to assure herself that the mobile website is in compliance with the 

ADA so that she and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the mobile 

website without fear of discrimination.

30. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and has suffered (and will continue to 

suffer) irreparable harm.de The Plaintiff will continue to suffer injury and damage without the 

immediate relief as requested herein.

31. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, thisCourt is provided with authority to grant Plaintiff 

Injunctive Relief, including an order to require Defendant to alter the mobile website to make it 

readily accessible to and usable by usable by Plaintiff (a visually impaired person).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, James Watson hereby demands judgment against Defendant, 

Wilson/Waddell Company, LLC., d/b/a J. Mark’s Restaurant and Bar., and requests the following 

injunctive and declaratory relief: 

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

violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and 28 C.F.R. Section 

36.303 et seq.;

b. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant has violated the ADA by 

failing to monitor and maintain the mobile website which serves as a gateway to its 

restaurant to ensure that it is readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff, a visually 

impaired person;

c. The Court issue an Order directing Defendant to alter the mobile website to the full 

extent required by Title III of the ADA;

d. The Court issue an Order directing Defendant provide the appropriate auxiliary aids 

such that Plaintiff (a visually impaired person) will be able to effectively communicate 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 9 of 10
Watson v. J. Mark’s Restaurant 

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 10 of 10 

with the mobile website for purposes of comprehending “J. Mark’s” restaurant menu 

selections, ordering gift cards and for ordering prepared food for pickup at Defendant, 

“J. Mark’s” restaurant, and during that time period prior to the mobile website’s being 

designed to permit Plaintiff to effectively communicate, requiring Defendant to provide 

an alternative method for Plaintiff to effectively communicate so that he is not impeded 

from obtaining the goods and services which Defendant has made available to the 

public through the mobile website. 

e. The Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize its policies and 

procedures towards Plaintiff (a visually impaired person) for such reasonable time so 

as to allow Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures;

f. The Court enter an Order directing Defendant to continually update and maintain the 

mobile website to ensure that it remains fully accessible and usable pursuant to Title 

III of the ADA;

g. The Court award attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205; and 

h. The Court provide such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is 

allowable under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Respectfully submitted this December 5, 2022. 

 By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

 J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. 

 FBN: 628166 

 J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 

 Miami, Florida 33156 

 Telephone: 305-351-2014 

 cc@cunninghampllc.com 

 legal@cunninghampllc.com

 

Case 1:22-cv-23948-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 10 of 10