1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 

EMILIO PINERO, 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

NORTH BAY VILLAGE F.A.A., L.L.C. 

d/b/a SHELL,

 Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, EMILIO PINERO, by his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint and 

sues, NORTH BAY VILLAGE F.A.A., L.L.C. d/b/a SHELL, for injunctive relief pursuant to the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §12131-12134

(hereinafter the “A.D.A”), the ADA’s Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36 (hereinafter 

the “ADAAG”), and the Florida Building Code.

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C., §§1331 

and 1343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 12181. et seq., based upon 

Defendant’s violations of Title III of the ADA (see also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202).

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, EMILIO PINERO, is a resident of Florida and currently lives in Miami, 

and is sui juris. He is a qualified individual with disabilities under the ADA law. Mr. Pinero is a 

double leg amputee from the knees down. Mr. Pinero owns his own vehicle and does drive. He 
2

has visited the property, which forms the basis of this lawsuit and plan to return to the property 

to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public at the property, and to determine 

whether the property has been made ADA compliant. His access to the facility and/or full and 

equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations 

offered therein was denied and/or limited because of these disabilities, and will be denied and/or 

barriers to access and ADA violations which exist at the facility, including but not limited, to 

those set forth in the Complaint.

3. Independent of his personal desire to have access to this place of public 

accommodation free of illegal barriers to access Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly 

situated disabled persons and is a "tester" for the purpose of asserting his civil rights and 

monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation are in 

compliance with the ADA. Independent of other subsequent visits, Plaintiff also intends to visit 

the Premises regularly to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, and its 

maintenance of the accessible features of the Premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in Plaintiff's 

individual capacity and as a "tester", visited the Premises, encountered barriers to access at the 

Premises, engaged and tested those barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury and will 

continue to suffer such harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access and the 

violations of the ADA set forth herein. It is Plaintiff's belief that said violations will not be

corrected without Court intervention, and thus Plaintiff will suffer legal harm and injury in the 

near future.

4. Defendant, NORTH BAY VILLAGE F.A.A., L.L.C. d/b/a SHELL, transacts 

business in the State of Florida and within this judicial district. Defendant is the owner and/or 

representative of the owner and/or operator of the property, which is the subject of this action, 
3

located on or about 1345 79th Street Causeway, North Bay Village, Florida (hereinafter the 

“facility”).

5. Defendant, NORTH BAY VILLAGE F.A.A., L.L.C., transacts business in the 

State of Florida and within this judicial district. Defendant is the owner and/or representative of 

the owner and/or operator of the gas station SHELL, which is the subject of this action, located 

on or about 1345 79th Street Causeway, North Bay Village, Florida (hereinafter the “facility”).

6. The facility is in close proximity to Plaintiff’s residence and is in an area 

frequently traveled by Plaintiff.

7. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on September 15, 2010, the 

Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, published revised regulations for Title 

III of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 in the Federal Register to implement the 

requirements of the ADA (hereinafter “STANDARDS”). Public accommodations were required 

to conform to these regulations on or before March 15, 2012.1

8. The removal of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations 

set forth herein is structurally practicable. 42 U.S.C. §12183(a)(1).

 9. The Defendant’s facility is a public accommodation and service establishment, 

and although required by law to do so, it is not in compliance with the ADA and ADAAG.

 10. In this instance, Mr. Pinero visited the facility and encountered barriers to access 

at the facility, and engaged barriers, suffered legal harm and injury, and will continue to suffer 

legal harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access, and Defendant’s ADA 

violations set forth herein.

1

"Safe Harbor. Elements that have not been altered in existing facilities on or after March 15, 2012, and that comply 

with the corresponding technical and scoping specifications for those elements in the 1991 Standards are not 

required to be modified in order to comply with the requirements set forth in the 2010 Standards" 28 CFR 

§36.304(d)(2)(i), however, the violations described herein violate both the 1991 Standards as well as the 2010 

Standards.
4

 11. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer direct and indirect injury as a result 

of the ADA violations that exist at the facility and the actions or inactions described herein. 

 12. All events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the State of Florida. Venue is 

proper in this Court as the premises are located in the Southern District. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIM

 13. Mr. Pinero has attempted to and has, to the extent possible, accessed the facility, 

but could not do so because of his disabilities due to the physical barriers to access, dangerous 

conditions and ADA violations that exist at the facility that restrict and/or limit his access to the 

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

offered therein, including those barriers, conditions and ADA violations more specifically set 

forth in this Complaint.

 14. Mr. Pinero intends to visit the facility again in the near future in order to utilize all 

of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations commonly 

offered at the facility, but will be unable to do so because of his disability due to the physical 

barriers to access, dangerous conditions and ADA violations that exist at the facility that restrict 

and/or limit his access to the facility and/or accommodations offered therein, including those 

barriers conditions and ADA violations more specifically set forth in this Complaint.

 15. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and others with disabilities by 

denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations of the facility, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C., § 12182, et. seq., 

and by failing to remove architectural barriers as required by 42 U.S.C., § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv), 

and will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until 

Defendant is compelled to remove all physical barriers that exist at the facility, including those 
5

specifically set forth herein, and make the facility accessible to and usable by persons with 

disabilities, including Plaintiff.

16. Defendant has discriminated against Mr. Pinero by failing to comply with the 

above requirements. A specific, although not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers, 

dangerous conditions and ADA violations which preclude and/or limit Plaintiff’s ability 

(because of his disability) to access the facility and/or full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the facility include: 

A) There is no public sidewalk connection contrary to the ADAAG.

B) Non-compliant interior aisle width contrary to the ADAAG.

C) Non-compliant service counter contrary to the ADAAG.

D) Non- compliant restroom door due to non-compliant side approach on push and 

pull sides contrary to the ADAAG.

E) Non-complaint door hardware contrary to the ADAAG.

F) Non-compliant door closer contrary to the ADAAG.

G) Non-compliant mirror contrary to the ADAAG.

H) Non-compliant sink contrary to the ADAAG.

I) Non-compliant toile due to the obstruction of clear floor space contrary to the 

ADAAG.

J) Non-compliant toilet flush lever contrary to the ADAAG.

K) Non-compliant dispensers (soap and towel) contrary to the ADAAG.

L) Non-compliant side and rear grab bars contrary to the ADAAG.

M) Non-compliant informational and directional signage contrary to the ADAAG.

N) Non-complaint soda dispenser height contrary to the ADAAG.
6

17. The above listing is not to be considered all-inclusive of the barriers, conditions or 

violations encountered by Plaintiff and/or which exist at the facility. Plaintiff requires an

inspection of the facility in order to determine all of the discriminatory acts violating the ADA. 

18. Mr. Pinero has attempted to gain access to the facility, but because of his disability 

has been denied access to, and has been denied the benefits of services, programs, and activities 

of the facility, and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by Defendant, because 

of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations set forth above, and expects to 

be discriminated against in the future, unless and until Defendant is compelled to remove the 

unlawful barriers and conditions and comply with the ADA. 

19. The removal of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations set 

forth herein is readily achievable and can be accomplished and carried out without much 

difficulty or expense. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(B)(2)(A)(iv); 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9); 28 C.F.R, § 

36.304.

20. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm, and 

reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless and until Defendant 

is required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations that exist 

at the facility, including those set forth herein. 

21. The Plaintiff has been obligated to retain undersigned counsel for the filing and 

prosecution of this action. The Plaintiff is entitled to have his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs 

and expenses paid by the Defendant, pursuant to 42 U.S.C., §§ 12205 and 12217.

22. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188(a), this Court is provided with authority to grant 

injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including an order to alter the subject facility to make it readily 
7

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA, and 

closing the subject facility until the requisite modifications are completed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue a permanent 

injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing is discriminatory practices, ordering Defendant 

to remove the physical barriers to access and alter the subject facility to make it readily 

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA, 

closing the subject facility until the barriers are removed and requisite alterations are completed, 

and awarding Plaintiff his reasonable attorney’s fees, expert fees, costs and litigation expenses 

incurred in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Glenn R. Goldstein

Glenn R. Goldstein, Esq. (FBN: 55873)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Morales, Goldstein & Barducci, PLLC

150 SE 2nd Ave, Ste. 805

Miami, Florida 33131

Ph: 561-573-2106

Rule 2.516 Email Designation:

Primary: ggoldstein@g2legal.net

Secondary: g2legalstaff@gmail.com

Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. (FBN: 34083)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lauren N. Wassernberg & Associates, P.A.

1825 NW Corporate Blvd, Ste. 110

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Ph: 561-571-0646

Rule 2.516 Email Designation:

Primary: wassenbergl@gmail.com

Secondary: adalawstaff@gmail.com