UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Luda Cannon

Plaintiff,

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A

Defendant.

_________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff residing at 524 West Main St. Maple Shade, New Jersey 

Hereby sues the Defendant for Injunctive Relief, attorney’s 

fees, litigation expenses and costs, pursuant to the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12181 et seq. (ADA) and 

for Injunctive Relief, damages, attorney fees, litigation 

expenses and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities 

Act. 

 THE ADA’S FUNDAMENTAL EFFECT ON

 ACCESS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS. 

The ADA mandates fundamental changes in the historical 

treatment of persons with disabilities and specifically requires 

that public accommodations include a failure to remove 

architectural barriers that are structural in nature in existing 

facilities. . . where such removal is readily achievable, 42 

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

U.S.C. § 12182(b)(c). Congress enacted the law because of its 

deep concern with the “alarming degree of non-participation in 

public life by persons with disabilities. It found a “sobering 

picture of an isolated and secluded population” in which the 

“large majority” of persons with disabilities do not go to 

public accommodations. H.R. Rep. No. 101-485(II), 34 (1990), 

reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 316. Predominate among the 

causes of this social isolation were “architectural barriers” to 

access. Id. at 385. 

Nanni v. Aberdeen Marketplace. 878F.3d. 447,457 

(4th Cir. 2017) the court explained the 

purpose of active enforcement of the ADA.

Moreover, under our system, all citizens are 

obliged to obey the law to aid law enforcement 

efforts. In various situations, citizens are 

required by law to report violators to the 

proper authorities. See,e.g., 18 U.S.C. sec. 4 

(requiring citizens to report felony offenses 

to judges and other authorities.) As Supreme 

Court acknowledged several years ago, the 

“enforcement [of civil rights laws] would prove 

difficult” and our country will be obliged “to 

rely in part upon private litigation as a means 

of securing broad compliance.” See Newman v. 

Park Entrers., 390 U.S. 400, 401, (1968). That 

very principle is also embodied in the ADA. See 

Dudley, 333 F. 3d at 306-07 (discussing 

importance of private litigation in achieving 

broad compliance with ADA.

 First Count

1. Plaintiff is residing at 524 West Main Street. Maple 

Shade Burlington County, New Jersey. For, approximately, five 

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

months she resides in Kings Point, Delray Beach, Florida and is 

a user of Defendants’ bank. 

2. Defendant’s business is public accommodation, a bank 

located at 7385 West Atlantic Ave., Delray Beach County, 

Florida. During the current corona virus 19 crisis defendant has 

done well receiving federal funding work.

3. Venue is properly located in this district, the 

property, which is the subject of this case, is in Florida. The 

Defendants’ property is located in Palm County and does business 

within this judicial district.

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec 1331 and 28 U.S.C. sec 1343, 

this Court has been given original jurisdiction over actions 

which arise from the Defendants’ violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. sec 12181 et seq. 

5. Plaintiff, Cannon qualifies as an individual with 

disabilities as defined by the ADA. She has orthopedic and 

neurological disabilities. Plaintiff ambulates by means of a 

walker and manual wheelchair and is unable to walk without 

assistance. She has reduced ability to push and pull because of 

severe arthritis. She also has a heart disability and is a 

kidney transplant survivor. 

6. Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place 

of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the 

regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104. 

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

Defendant is responsible for complying with the obligations of 

the ADA. 

7. Cannon has a realistic, credible, existing and 

continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant’s noncompliance with the ADA with respect to this property as 

described but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this 

complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that she 

will continue to be subjected to ADA discrimination by the 

Defendant. Ms. Cannon desires to visit the subject public 

accommodation not only to avail the goods and services available 

at the property but to assure that this property is in 

compliance with the ADA, so, that she and others, similarly 

situated, will have full and equal enjoyment of the property 

without fear of discrimination.

8. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff 

by denying her access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

accommodations of the buildings and services as prohibited by 42 

U.S.C. sec' 12182 et seq.

9. The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to 

discriminate against the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA by 

failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities.

10. These violations that personally encountered, and which 

were verified by an ADA expert.

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

11. The Plaintiff has, on many occasions, enjoyed the 

banking services of the Defendant. She, also, has visited 

intentionally as a tester, as well as a patron, to ensure 

compliance with the ADA pursuant to Houston v. Marod 

Supermarkets, 733. F. 3d 1323 (11th cir. 2013). As stated, she 

has been a patron on many occasions, including, May 9, 2020. 

12. Her ability to use the public accommodation was greatly 

impaired because of physical barriers. 13. Below mentioned is the following barriers:

14. Exterior.

Exterior routes into the bank, commons and parking. 

a. There is no accessible route within the site from parking 

 spaces and accessible parking public streets and sidewalks; 

 public transportation nor within on the property. 

 ADAAG 206.2.1. 

b. The public accommodation ADAAG 206, 206.2. Specially, the 

route provided to the bank’s entrances, has physical 

barriers containing of slopes which are too steep and cross 

slopes in violation ADAAG 206, 206.2, 401, 402,403, 404, 

405, 406, et al. These barriers impair her use of the 

defendant’ services. 

15. Bathrooms

Bathrooms are improperly accessible (doors, grab bars, 

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

sink).

16. Parking. 

There is no proper accessible parking in that the space provided 

for the disabled is on a slope that exceeds 2%. ADAAG 502.4.

17. Maintenance.

a. The accessible features of the facility are not maintained, 

creating barriers to access for the Plaintiff, as set forth 

herein, in violation of §28 CFR §36.211. 

18. All of the foregoing violations are violations of the 2010 

Standards for Accessible Design, as well as the 1991 Standards, 

as promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice.

19. The foregoing discriminatory violations described are not 

an exclusive list of the Defendants’ ADA violations. Plaintiff 

requires the inspection of the Defendants’ place of public 

accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the ADA 

violations. The Plaintiff and all other individuals, similarly 

situated, have been denied access to, and have been denied the 

benefits of proper services, programs and activities of the 

Defendant’s buildings and its facilities, and have otherwise 

been discriminated against and damaged by the Defendant because 

of the Defendant’s ADA violations, as set forth above. The 

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated will continue to 

suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the 

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

immediate relief provided by the ADA, as requested herein. In 

order to remedy this discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff 

requires an inspection of the Defendants’ place of public 

accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

20. Defendant has discriminated against the individual 

Plaintiff, by denying her access to full and equal enjoyment of 

the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

accommodations of its place of public accommodation or 

commercial facility in violation of 42 U.S.C. sec 12181 et seq. 

and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendant continues 

to discriminate against the Plaintiff, and all those similarly 

situated by failing to make reasonable modifications in 

policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are 

necessary to afford all offered goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with 

disabilities; and by failing to take such efforts that 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.

21. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is 

suffering irreparable harm. Considering the balance of 

hardships between the Plaintiff and Defendant, a remedy in 

equity is warranted. Furthermore, the public interest would not 

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

be disserved by a permanent injunction. Plaintiff has retained 

the undersigned counsel and are entitled to recover attorney’s 

fees, costs and litigation expenses from the Defendant pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. sec 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505.

22. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural 

barriers to the physically disabled, when such removal is 

readily achievable for its place of public accommodation that 

have existed prior to January 26, 1992, 28 CFR 36.304(a); in the 

alternative, if there has been an alteration to Defendants’ 

place of public accommodation since January 26, 1992, then the 

Defendant is required to ensure to the maximum extent feasible, 

that the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible 

to and useable by individuals with disabilities, including 

individuals who use wheelchairs, 28 CFR 36.402; and finally, if 

the Defendant’s facility is one which was designed and 

constructed for first occupancy subsequent to January 26, 1993, 

as defined in 28 CFR 36.401, then the Defendant’s facility must 

be readily accessible to and useable by individuals with 

disabilities as defined by the ADA. 

23. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of the 

Defendant’s failure to cure the violations by January 26, 1992 

(or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and 

gross receipts of $500,000 or less). All other conditions 

precedent have been met by Plaintiff or waived by the Defendant.

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

24. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 12188, this Court is provided with 

authority to grant Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an 

order to require the Defendant to alter the subject public 

accommodation to make those facilities readily accessible and 

useable to the Plaintiff and all other persons with disabilities 

as defined by the ADA; or by closing the facility until such 

time as the Defendant cures its violations of the ADA. The 

Order shall further require the Defendant to maintain the 

required assessable features on an ongoing basis, and to require 

the institution of a policy that requires Defendant to maintain 

its accessible features.

25. The Plaintiff will return and enjoy the services of the on 

many occasions being close to Kings Point, Houston v. Marod 

Supermarkets, 733. F. 3d 1323 (11th cir. 2013).

25. The plaintiff assets the right to seek relief under 

administrative remedies the law of Florida including damages 

under the Florida Constitution Art I section 2 and the Florida 

Civil Rights Act of 1992 760.01. - 60.11. 

26. Prior to filing this suit, the undersigned investigated 

whether the site of Defendant has been sued. It has not been 

sued. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests:

a. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that 

the Defendant at the commencement of the subject lawsuit is 

in violation of Title III of the Americans with 

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq.

b. Injunctive relief against the Defendant including an order 

to make all readily achievable alterations to the facility; 

or to make such facility readily accessible to and usable 

by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by 

the ADA; and to require the Defendant to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when 

such modifications are necessary to afford all offered 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 

accommodations to individuals with disabilities; and by 

failing to take such steps that 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.

c. An award of attorney fees, costs and litigation expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec 12205.

d. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, 

and/or is allowable under Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

 Second Count

27. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the first count.

28. Defendant is a recipient of federal financial assistance by 

virtue of receipt of payments for Veteran loans, mortgages student

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 10 of 12
11

etc, as well as other federal financial assistance. 

29. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, 

requires that no qualified individual with a disability, on the basis

of that disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied

the benefit of the services, programs, activities, or to otherwise

be discriminated against. 

30. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs by failing 

to provide access to the disabled in violation of Section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. 

31. Defendants’ actions were intentional, with reckless disregard 

and with deliberate indifference to the rights and needs of the 

Plaintiffs, herein in that it has been sued in federal courts for 

access violations in Ala, Calif, Col, Fla, Ga, Minn, Miss, NJ, NM, 

Nev, Or Texas, Utah as well as state court and is quite aware of its 

failures to provide access. As a result, Plaintiff been damaged and 

have suffered injuries and experienced emotional suffering, pain, and 

anguish. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Court enter judgment in her 

favor to declare that Defendants actions and inactions violate the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and award Plaintiff damages for injuries,

emotional suffering, pain and anguish and reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs, as well as injunctive relief. 

Respectfully submitted,

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 11 of 12
12

Dated: May 28, 2020. S/ Anthony J. Brady Jr. 

Anthony J. Brady, Jr., Esq. 

604 Banyan Trail, 

P.O. 811362

Boca Raton, FL 33431

561 603 6387

Ladbrady@gmail.com.

Florida bar number 100366.

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

Case 9:20-cv-80884-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 12 of 12