UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Nicholas Pavlak

Plaintiff,

vs.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP

Defendant.

_________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff residing at 97th Drive North Jupiter Florida 33478,

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, 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-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 1 of 12
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

2

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 2 of 12
1. Plaintiff is residing at 97th Drive North Jupiter

Florida 33478.

2. Defendant’s business is public accommodation, a

located at 3250 Northlake blvd Palm beach County, Florida.

During the current corona virus 19 defendant remain open and its

stock value has increased. It is an United States multinational

corporation which operates a chain of membership-only warehouse

clubs As of 2015, Costco is the second largest retailer in

the world after Wal-Mart. Costco is the world's largest

retailer of choice and prime beef, organic foods, rotisserie

chicken, and wine. As of 2019, Costco is ranked #14 on the

fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations

by total revenue.

3. Venue is properly located in this district, the

property, which is the subject of this case, is in 3250

Northlake Blvd, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33403 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.

3

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 3 of 12
5. Plaintiff, Pavlak qualifies as an individual with

disabilities as defined by the ADA. He has orthopedic and

neurological disabilities. Plaintiff ambulates by means of a

walker and manual wheelchair and is unable to walk without

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

arthritis, morbid obesity. He also has a heart disease.

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.

Defendant is responsible and obligated to comply with the ADA.

7. Pavlak has a realistic, credible, existing and

continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant’s

non-compliance 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. Pavlak desires to visit the subject’s 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

4

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 4 of 12
by denying his 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.

11. The Plaintiff has being a member of Defendants club since

the mid 1990s. He also, has visited 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,

he has been a patron on many occasions starting in

the mid 1990s, including, May 21, 2020.

12. His ability to use the public accommodation was greatly

impaired because of physical barriers.

13. Below mentioned is the following barriers:

14. Exterior.

Routes into the store bathrooms and parking.

a. There is no accessible route from parking to the front

entrance because of shopping carts block said route. Also,

from accessible parking to public streets and sidewalks;

5

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 5 of 12
ADAAG 206.1 et seq. and 402 et seq 28 CFR 36.211.

15. Bathrooms

a. Bathrooms are improperly accessible: the entrance

doors are too heavy and shuts too quickly. Lock in the

accessible stall is not maintained. 258 CFR 36.211 and

ADAAG 603 et seq. Recently, the defendant has kept its

bathroom doors in an open position.

16. Parking.

There is no proper accessible parking in that the spaces

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

502.4. The parking is not on the shortest route because the

closest accessible parking spaces are intentionally used

for shopping carts. In addition, the disabled parking is not

disbursed, which is in violation of 28 CFR 36.302. ADAAG 208 et.

Seq. and 502 et seq.

17. Maintenance.

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

disabled spaces which are closest to the front entrance are

occupied with shopping carts, creating barriers for the

Plaintiff, as set forth herein, in violation of §28 CFR

6

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 6 of 12
§36.211. in addition, routes to the commons are not

maintained. Bathrooms inside are not maintained as well.

b. The Defendant also violates the policies, practice and/or

procedurals by intentional placing shopping carts into

parking spaces, provided for the disabled. 28 CFR 36.302.

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

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

7

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 7 of 12
accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of

non-compliance 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 be

disserved by a permanent injunction. Plaintiff has retained the

8

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 8 of 12
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.

9

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 9 of 12
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 his house. Houston v. Marod

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

26. The plaintiff asserts 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.

27. 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

10

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 10 of 12
the Defendant at the commencement of the subject lawsuit is

in violation of Title III of the Americans with

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.

11

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 11 of 12
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 7, 2020. S/ Anthony J. Brady Jr.

Anthony J. Brady, Jr., Esq.

604 Banyan Trail,

P.O. Box 811362

Boca Raton, FL 33431

561 603 6387

Ladbrady@gmail.com.

Florida bar number 100366.

Attorney for Plaintiff

12

Case 9:20-cv-80920-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 12 of 12