Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 

JAMES WATSON

Plaintiff,

v.

PADRINO'S RESTAURANTS, INC., 

d/b/a Padrino's Restaurant 

Defendant.

 / 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, James Watson (“Plaintiff”) hereby sues Defendant, Padrino’s Restaurants, 

Inc. (“Defendant”) doing business as Padrino’s Restaurant 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.

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 1 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 2 of 17

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

qualifies 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 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, Padrino’s Restaurants, Inc., is a Florida for Profit Corporation 

which owns and operates a restaurant chain branded as “Padrino's Restaurant”. Defendant’s 

restaurant is located at 2500 E Hallandale Beach Blvd, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 and is 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 2 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 3 of 17 

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). Padrino’s Restaurants, Inc., 

restaurant is also referenced herein as “place of public accommodation,” “Padrino’s” or 

“restaurant.”

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

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

or other establishment serving food or drink,” 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B) and 28 C.F.R. 

§36.104(2).

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

caused to be constructed, and/or became a beneficiary of the https://padrinos.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, “Padrino’s”. The 

mobile website delineates the goods, services, accommodations, privileges, benefits and 

facilities available to patrons at “Padrino’s” restaurant. 

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

Padrino’s menu selections, hours of operation, restaurant locations, specials, happy hours, 

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

allows the public to obtain information about private dining and catering services, and the 

ability to make a reservation. The mobile website also provides a link to place an order for 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 3 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 4 of 17 

delivery within each restaurant location (including Defendant’s restaurant), allows the 

public to purchase gift cards online for exclusive use when dining at “Padrino’s” 

restaurants (including the Hallandale location). The mobile website also provides links to 

“Padrino’s” Facebook, and Instagram pages. By the provision of menu selection, the ability 

to place an order, purchase gift cards online, and make reservations, the mobile website is 

an integral part of the goods and services offered by Defendant. By this nexus, the mobile 

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

, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 12181(7)(B) & (E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2) and (5). 

10. The 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. As such, the mobile website is subject to the ADA because it is 

offered as a tool to promote, advertise and sell products and services from Defendant’s 

restaurant, which is a place of public accommodation. As a result, the mobile website must 

interact with the public, and in doing so 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 public2

. 

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. 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 4 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 5 of 17 

11. The mobile website does not properly interact with the VoiceOver screen 

reader software technology in a manner that allows blind and visually impaired individuals 

to comprehend the mobile website and does not provide other means to accommodate blind 

and visually impaired individuals.

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

use the https://padrinos.com mobile website to test whether he can comprehend the 

“Padrino’s” restaurant menu selections, or test for the ability to order food. 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.

13. 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 unless he is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

14. Defendant and alike restaurants are fully aware of the need to provide full 

access to all visitors to the mobile website as such barriers result in discriminatory and 

unequal treatment of individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired and result in 

punishment and isolation of blind and low vision individuals from the rest of society.

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-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 5 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 6 of 17 

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 discriminatory 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 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.

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 6 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 7 of 17 

20. 28C.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 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.

22. The https://padrinos.com mobile website has been designed to integrate with

the Padrino’s Restaurants (including their Hallandale location) through the provision of a 

reservation service and the ability to inquire about private events online. Defendant has 

extended its Padrino’s Restaurant into individual persons' homes and portable devices 

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

advantage, benefit and accommodation of its restaurant. Because the mobile website is

integrated with, and is a nexus to, Defendant’s brick-and-mortar restaurant, it is governed 

by the following provisions:

a. U.S.C. Section 12182(a) provides: “No individual shall be 

discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 7 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 8 of 17

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.”

b. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(i) provides: “It shall be 

discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or 

disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other 

arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or 

benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of 

an entity[.]”

c. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides: “It shall be 

discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or 

disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other 

arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, 

privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other 

individuals[.]”

d. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides: “It shall be 

discriminatory to provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability 

or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or 

other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation 

that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is 

necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 8 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 9 of 17

privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that 

provided to others[.]”

e. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(B) provides: “Goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall be afforded to an individual 

with a disability in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual.”

f. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(C) provides: “Notwithstanding the 

existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this 

section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in 

such programs or activities that are not separate or different.”

g. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(ii) describes as discrimination: “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[.]”

h. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(iii) describes as discrimination: “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, 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 9 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 10 of 17 

service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in 

an undue burden[.]”

23. Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize the https://padrinos.com mobile 

website, but was unable to, and he continues to be unable to enjoy full and equal access to 

the mobile website and/or understand the content therein because numerous portions of the 

mobile website do not interface with VoiceOver screen reader software. Specifically, 

features of the mobile website that are inaccessible to VoiceOver screen reader software 

users include, but are not limited to, the following (citing the WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA 

Guidelines):

i. Guideline 1.3.2 - Meaningful Sequence is violated. Mobile SRUs are unable to 

select a new date on the 'Private Dining Inquiry' form. When the date picker is 

displayed, then focus exits the popup and moves to the Event Time field before the 

dates are announced. As shown in the screen capture, the date picker window is still 

displayed, but the Event Time field is announced.

ii. Guideline 2.4.3. Focus order is violated. None of the menu links are announced on 

mobile. After expanding the main menu then focus remained on the underlying 

homepage and "Cuban for all heading level 2" was announced. Focus didn't move 

into the expanded main menu and none of the links were announced.

iii. Guideline 1.4.5 – Images of Text is violated. The content in the Holiday Season 

popup is only available as an unlabeled image. Even with the accessibility widget 

announced, the popup was announced as only "web dialog bit dot l y link." None of 

the content or the Order Now link is announced.

24. In this instant case, the mobile website’s reservation system is linked to a 

third-party vendor. The fact that a portion of the WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guideline 

violations may be related to the third-party vendor’s reservation platform does not absolve 

Defendant of culpability. Because restaurants are places of public accommodation, their 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 10 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 11 of 17

operators are subject to the requirements of Title III as well. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(b). 

Those requirements include a prohibition against subjecting patrons with disabilities to 

discrimination “through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements,” such as use of thirdparty vendors’ inaccessible platforms for making reservations. 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A); See Kohler v Bed Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1264-66 

(9th Cir. 2015) (Pre-existing obligations under Title III of the ADA may not be avoided 

through contractual arrangements, and those obligations remain even where compliance is 

under control of another party); Robles v. Yum! Brands, Inc., 2018 WL 566781, *4 (C.D. 

Cal. January 24, 2018) (restaurant operators are liable for website and mobile app

accessibility where there is a nexus to the restaurants themselves).

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

serves as a gateway to Defendant’s “Padrino’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, to test for his ability to purchase food, and purchase gift cards 

online.

26. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 11 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 12 of 17

24) either directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements. Defendant’s 

violations have resulted in Defendant denying Plaintiff accommodation on the basis of his 

disability:

a. by depriving Plaintiff of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of its place of public 

accommodation (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a));

b. in the denial of providing Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in or 

benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations (42 

U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i));

c. in failing to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in or benefit 

from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is equal to that 

afforded to other individuals (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii));

d. by providing Plaintiff a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, 

or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals 

(unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a 

good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that 

is as effective as that provided to others) (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii));

e. by failing to afford Plaintiff goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, and accommodations in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of 

the disabled individual (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(B));

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 12 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 13 of 17 

f. notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or 

activities provided in accordance with this section, by denying Plaintiff the opportunity to 

participate in such programs or activities that are not separate or different. (42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(C));

g. by 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) (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(ii)); and,

h. by a failure to take such steps as necessary to ensure that disabled 

individuals are not 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) (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(iii)).

27. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations within the mobile website 

https://padrinos.com and is aware that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize the 

mobile website as long as those violations exist unless he is willing to suffer additional 

discrimination.

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 13 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 14 of 17 

28. Plaintiff is well aware that the ADA requires effective communications. 

However, long after the required date of compliance, many public accommodations refuse 

to comply leaving Plaintiff feeling excluded and rejected because he is disabled. As a 

result, Plaintiff has suffered (and continues to suffer) frustration and humiliation as the 

result of the discriminatory conditions present within the mobile website. By continuing to 

operate and/or be the beneficiary of a mobile website with discriminatory conditions, 

Defendant has contributed (and continues to contribute) to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and 

segregation and deprives Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the general public. By 

encountering the discriminatory conditions within the mobile website and knowing that it 

would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize the mobile website unless he is willing to 

endure additional discrimination, Plaintiff is (and has been) suffering discrimination. By 

maintaining and/or benefiting from a mobile website with violations, Defendant deprives 

Plaintiff the equality of opportunity offered to the general public.

29. Plaintiff has suffered (and will continue to suffer) direct and indirect injury 

as a result of Defendant’s discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the 

requirements of the ADA and conform the https://padrinos.com mobile website to WCAG 

2.1 Level A and AA Guidelines.

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

discrimination from Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the 

https://padrinos.com mobile website. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he 

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 14 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 15 of 17

will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA when he visits the 

website to test for compliance with the ADA. Plaintiff desires to access the mobile website 

to avail himself of the benefits, advantages, goods and services therein, and/or to assure 

himself that this mobile website is in compliance with the ADA so that he and others 

similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the mobile website without fear of 

discrimination.

31. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and has suffered (and will 

continue to suffer) irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated will 

continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief 

provided by the ADA as requested herein.

32. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to require Defendant to alter the mobile 

website so that it is readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff and other persons with 

vision impairments.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, James Watson hereby demands judgment against 

Defendant, Padrino’s Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Padrino’s Restaurant 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, 42 

U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.;

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 15 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 16 of 17

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 

make it accessible to, and useable by, individuals with disabilities 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 with the mobile website for purposes of 

comprehending Padrino’s menu selections, making reservations to dine 

within Defendant’s restaurant, and for inquiring about space for private 

dining events, 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 persons with disabilities for such reasonable 

time so as to allow Defendant to undertake and complete corrective 

procedures;

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 16 of 17
Watson v. Padrino's Restaurant

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Page 17 of 17 

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

maintain the mobile website to ensure that it remains fully accessible to and 

usable by visually impaired individuals;

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 20, 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

 

 Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-24124-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 17 of 17