Lucius v. Diatrade LLC

Filing 15

Order on Motion for Default Judgment, denying 14 Motion for Default Judgment. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 4/28/2021. See attached document for full details. (pcs)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Windy Lucius, Plaintiff,
v.
Diatrade LLC, Defendant.

)
)
) Civil Action No. 21-20638-Civ-Scola
)
)

Order on Motion for Default Judgment
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment. (ECF No. 14.) In its complaint, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant
operates a “place of public accommodation” in Miami-Dade County and owns
and utilizes a website which is “an extension of . . . the above-referenced public
accommodation.” (ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 4-5, 8.) In her complaint, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant, as “the owner or operator of the subject website . . .
is required to comply with the ADA.” (Id. at ¶ 9.) The Plaintiff says that she
would like to use the Defendant’s website to “pre-shop” the Defendant’s brick
and mortar store, but is unable to do so because of access issues relating to
the website’s functionality. (Id. at ¶ 8.) As a result, the Plaintiff argues the
website suffers from various deficiencies in alleged violation of the ADA which
make it difficult for visually impaired individuals to visit the Defendant’s
website. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-15.)
During the pendency of this lawsuit, the Eleventh Circuit issued its
decision in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, No. 17-13467, 2021 WL 1289906 (11th Cir.
2021.) In Gil, the Eleventh Circuit held that “the plain language of Title III of
the ADA” provides that “public accommodations are limited to actual, physical
places” such that “websites are not a place of public accommodation under
Title III of the ADA.” Id. at *7. Moreover, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s
complaint fails to allege that the Defendant’s website creates an “intangible
barrier” to access because it does not prevent the Plaintiff from being able to
enjoy fully and equally the Defendant’s physical stores as contemplated by the
ADA. Id. at *12.
In light of the Eleventh Circuit’s intervening precedent, the Court denies
the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 14.) The Court also
denies the Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
The Clerk is directed to close this case. All pending motions, if any, are denied
as moot.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on April 28, 2021.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge