Page 1 of 13 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 

LEONARDO BANES, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ASANA PARTNERS LEASING SERVICES, LLC., 

d/b/a The Warehouse District. 

Defendant. 

 / 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, Leonardo Banes (“Plaintiff”) hereby sues Defendant, Asana Partners Leasing 

Services, LLC., doing business as Warehouse District (“Defendant”), a Florida business entity, 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 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, livesin Palm Beach 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 1 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 2 of 13

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 to help him navigate a world of goods, products and 

services like the sighted. The internet, and websites provide him a window into the world that he 

would not otherwise have. He brings this action against Defendant for offering and maintaining a 

website that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. 

Plaintiff utilizes the JAWS screen reader softwear to read computer materials and/or access and 

comprehend internet 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 websites to ensure

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

with the ADA.

6. Defendant, Asana Partners Leasing Services, LLC., owns and operates a place of 

public accommodation known as The Warehouse District, which includes restaurants, art galleries 

and related establishments, located within Palm Beach County at the 1500 and 1600 Blocks of 

Elizabeth and Clare Avenues, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 and is open to the public. As such, 

it is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA and its 

implementing regulation as defined by 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B) as “[A] restaurant, bar, or other 

establishment serving food or drink,” and defined in §12182, and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2). The 

Warehouse District, which includes restaurants/bars, is also referenced throughout as “place of 

public accommodation,” and “The Warehouse District.” 

7. Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates The Warehouse District

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 2 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 3 of 13

in West Palm Beach, therefore Defendant is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within the 

meaning of 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, the https://www.thedistrictwpb.com/ website (hereinafter “website”) for the general 

public to access on their devices (computers, laptops, phones, tablets). This website supports, is an 

extension of, is in conjunction with, is complementary and supplemental to, the establishments 

located in Defendant’s The Warehouse District. The website delineates the goods, services, 

accommodations, privileges, benefits and facilities available to patrons at the West Palm Beach

The Warehouse District location, including restaurants/bars. 

9. The website is offered by Defendant as a way for the public to become familiar 

with its West Palm Beach hours of operation and links that provide other information Defendant 

seeks to communicate to the public, including links to restaurants, bars, art galleries, and related 

establishments located at The Warehouse District, and related goods/services. By the provision of 

links to establishments located in The Warehouse District and related information, the website is 

an integral part of the goods and services offered by Defendant. By this nexus, the 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) & (5). 

10. Defendant’s website allows device users to use a platform through a connection to 

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 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 3 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 4 of 13

Wi-Fi or cellular data so that device users can manage their dining/entertainment choice from their 

computer. As such, it has subjected itself to the ADA because its website is offered as a tool to 

promote, advertise and sell its products and services from its brick-and-mortar locations including 

restaurants and bars, which is a place of public accommodation. As a result, Defendant’s website 

must interact with its establishments, including restaurants, and 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 

public.2

11. Defendant’s website does not properly interact with JAWS screen reader software 

technology in a manner that allows blind and visually impaired individuals to comprehend the 

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 

Defendant’s website to test whether he can comprehend the various establishments located at The 

Warehouse District and the links provided to restaurants, bars, and other establishments there.

However, unless Defendant is required to eliminate the access barriers at issue and required to 

change its policies so that access barriers do not reoccur, Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

persons will continue to be denied full and equal access to the services of Defendant’s West Palm 

Beach The Warehouse District location.

13. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations on Defendant’s website and is 

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

exist unless he is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

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 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 4 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 5 of 13

14. Defendant and alike restaurants and related establishments are fully aware of the 

need to provide full access to all visitors to its 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. 

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

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

discriminatory practice.

16. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of its 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 (JAWS) 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 5 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 6 of 13

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://www.thedistrictwpb.com/ website has been designed to integrate with 

Defendant’s The Warehouse District, with its restaurants, bars, art galleries, and related 

establishments, with links to those establishments which contain information concerning hours of 

operation, making of reservations, and related products. Defendant has extended its public 

accommodation, with all of its establishments, into individual persons' homes, computers and

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

advantage, benefit and accommodation of its location. Because the website is integrated with, and 

is a nexus to, Defendant’s location, including restaurants and related locations, 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, 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 6 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 7 of 13

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, 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 7 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 8 of 13

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, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or 

accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden[.]”

23. Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's website, but was unable to, 

and he continues to be unable to enjoy full and equal access to the website and/or understand the 

content therein because numerous portions of the mobile website do not interface with JAWS

screen reader software. Specifically, the homepage and other pages of the website had so many 

unlabeled links that Plaintiff could not access, with the JAWS reader, any of the specific 

information he sought anywhere on the website, specifically information concerning Defendant’s 

establishments’ hours of operation, products and related goods/services.

24. As the owner and/or operator of The Warehouse District website, Defendant is 

required to comply with the ADA and the provisions cited above. This includes Defendant’s 

obligation to create and maintain a website that is accessible to and usable by visually impaired

persons so that they can enjoy full and equal access to the website and the contenttherein, including 

the ability to view products and related information within The Warehouse District and its 

establishments online. 

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 8 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 9 of 13

25. With respect to its website, Defendant has violated the ADA by failing to interface 

its website with JAWS screen reader software utilized by visually impaired individuals 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));

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 

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 9 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 10 of 13

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 may be 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)).

26. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations within Defendant's website and is

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

exist unless he is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

27. 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 Defendant's website. By continuing to operate its website with discriminatory 

conditions, Defendant contributes 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 10 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 11 of 13

within Defendant's website and knowing that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize the

website unless he is willing to endure additional discrimination, Plaintiff is deprived of the 

meaningful choice of freely visiting and utilizing the same accommodations readily available to 

the general public and is deterred and discouraged from doing so. By maintaining a mobile website

with violations, Defendant deprives Plaintiff the equality of opportunity offered to the general 

public.

28. 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 its 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 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 website to test for compliance with the ADA. Plaintiff 

desires to access the website to avail himself of the benefits, advantages, goods and services 

therein, and/or to assure himself that the website is in compliance with the ADA so that he and 

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

discrimination.

30. 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 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 its mobile website to make it 

readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff and other persons with vision impairments.

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 11 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 12 of 13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Leonardo Banes hereby demands judgment against Defendant 

The Warehouse District and requests the following injunctive and declaratory relief: 

a. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that Defendant's website

is in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 

et seq.;

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

failing to monitor and maintain its website to ensure that it is readily accessible to 

and usable by persons with vision impairment;

c. The Court issue an Order directing Defendant to alter its 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 individuals with visual impairments will be able to effectively 

communicate with the https://www.thedistrictwpb.com/ website for purposes of 

comprehending Defendant’s establishments, including restaurants, their hours of 

operation, make reservations, and during that time period prior to the website’s 

being designed to permit individuals with visual impairments to effectively 

communicate, requiring Defendant to provide an alternative method for individuals 

with visual impairments to effectively communicate so that disabled individuals are 

not impeded from obtaining the goods and services made available to the public 

through Defendant’s 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 12 of 13
Banes v. Asana Partners, et al

Complaint for Injunctive Relief 

Page 13 of 13

allow Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures;

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

its 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 on this November 14, 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 

 Phone: 305-351-2014 

 cc@cunninghampllc.com 

 legal@cunninghampllc.com

 Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81767-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 13 of 13