UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

CARLOS BRITO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.

and LAGO EXPRESS, INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobilityimpaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, 

INC., and LAGO EXPRESS, INC. (hereinafter “Defendants”), and as grounds alleges:

JURISDICTION, PARTIES. AND VENUE

1. This is an action for injunctive relief, a declaration of rights, attorneys' fees,

litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., (the “Americans with

Disabilities Act” or “ADA”) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

2. The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12181, et seq. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a).

3. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and

2202, and may render declaratory judgment on the existence or nonexistence of any right under 42 

U.S.C. § 12181, et seq.

4. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is an individual over eighteen years of age, residing

in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.

5. At all times material, Defendant, SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, 

INC., owned and operated a place of public accommodation at 2445 W Flagler Street, Miami, 

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 1 of 11
2

Florida, (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business 

in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade, Florida.

6. At all times material, Defendant, SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, 

INC., was and is a Florida Profit Corporation, with its principal address in Doral, Florida. 

7. At all times material, Defendant, LAGO EXPRESS, INC., owned and operated a 

gas station and a place of public accommodation at 2445 W Flagler Street, Miami, Florida, 

(hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that 

place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade, Florida.

8. At all times material, Defendant, LAGO EXPRESS, INC., was and is a Florida 

Profit Corporation, with its principal address in Miami, Florida. 

9. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because Defendants’

Commercial Property is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants regularly conduct 

business within Miami-Dade County, Florida, and because a substantial part(s) of the events or 

omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Although over twenty-seven (27) years have passed since the effective date of 

Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make its facilities accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. 

11. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the

Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the

extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants continue to discriminate against 

people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants’ businesses 

and properties.

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 2 of 11
3

12. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in 28 CFR 36.201 and 

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance

13. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is, among other things, a paraplegic (paralyzed 

from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to 

his impairment, including, but not limited to, not being able to walk or stand. Plaintiff requires the 

use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

14. Defendant, SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., owns, operates

and overseesthe Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. Defendant LAGO 

EXPRESS, INC. operates the gas station business located within the Commercial Property. 

15. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Miami, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

16. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located 

within the Commercial Property, regularly, to include visits to the Commercial Property and

businesses located within the Commercial Property on or about May 28, 2019 and May 8, 2020,

and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy 

the Commercial Property and businesses located located therein. He often visits the Commercial 

Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of the 

goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately eighteen (18) miles from his

residence, and is near his friends’ residences as well as other businesses and restaurants he 

frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the Commercial Property and the businesses located 

within the Commercial Property within two (2) months of the filing of this Complaint. 

17. Plaintiff resides nearby in the same county and state as the Commercial Property

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 3 of 11
4

and the businesses located within the Commercial Property, has regularly frequented the 

Defendants’ Commercial Property and the businesses located within the Commercial Property for 

the intended purposes because of the proximity to his and his friends’ residences and other 

businesses that he frequents as a patron, and intends to return to the Commercial Property and

businesses located within the Commercial Property within two (2) months from the filing of this 

Complaint. 

18. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the businesses located within

the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural 

barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and

wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.

19. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the 

ADA at the subject Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property. 

The barriers to access at Defendants’ Commercial Property, and the businesses located within the 

Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff’s ability to visit the Commercial 

Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, and have endangered his safety

in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, which are set forth below, have likewise posed a 

risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, and others 

similarly situated.

20. Defendant, SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., owns and 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. LAGO EXPRESS, INC. owns and operates the has station 

business within the Commercial Property. Defendants, SUNSHINE GASOLINE 

DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and LAGO EXPRESS, INC. are responsible for complying with the 

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 4 of 11
5

obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation that Defendants, SUNSHINE 

GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and LAGO EXPRESS, INC. own and operate the 

Commercial Property Business located 2445 W Flagler Street, Miami, Florida.

21. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing

threat of discrimination from the Defendants’ non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the 

described Commercial Property and the businesses located within the Commercial Property,

including but not necessarily limited to the allegations in Paragraph 26 of this Complaint. 

Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination 

at the Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, in violation 

of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial Property and businesses located therein, not 

only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the Commercial Property, and 

businesses located within the Commercial Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial

Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property are in compliance with the ADA,

so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the Commercial

Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination.

22. Defendant, SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., as landlord and 

owner of the Commercial Property Business, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in

Paragraph 26 of this Complaint. Defendant LAGO EXPRESS, INC., as tenant and owner of the 

business is jointly and severally liable for all the violations listed in Paragraph 26 of this 

Complaint. 

23. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing 

threat of discrimination from the Defendants’ non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the 

described Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property, but not 

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 5 of 11
6

necessarily limited to the allegations in Paragraph 26 of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable 

grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the Commercial

Property, and businesses within the Commercial Property, in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff 

desires to visit the Commercial Property and businesses within the Commercial Property, not only 

to avail himself of the goods and services available at the Commercial Property and businesses 

located within the Commercial Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial Property, and

businesses located within the Commercial Property are in compliance with the ADA, so that he 

and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the Commercial Property, and 

businesses located within the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination. 

24. Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him 

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

and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property, and businesses located within the 

Commercial Property, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

ADA VIOLATIONS

25. The Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 

through 24 above as though fully set forth herein.

26. Defendants, SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and LAGO 

EXPRESS, INC. have discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against Plaintiff in violation 

of the ADA by failing, inter alia, to have accessible facilities by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 

1993, if a Defendants have 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). A list 

of the violations that Plaintiff encountered during his visit to the Commercial Property, include but 

are not limited to, the following:

Common Areas

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 6 of 11
7

A. Parking

i. The Plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as designated accessible parking spaces are 

located on an excessive slope. Violation: There are accessible parking spaces located on an 

excessive slope violating Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG and Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as designated accessible parking space access 

aisles are located on an excessive slope. Violation: There are accessible parking space access 

aisles located on an excessive slope violating Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG and Section 502.4 

of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

B. Access to Goods and Services

i. There is seating provided at the facility that does not comply with the standards prescribed in 

Section 4.32 of the ADAAG and Sections 226 & 902 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

C. Public Restrooms

i. The Plaintiff could not flush the toilet without assistance, as the flush valve is not mounted on 

the wide area. Violation: The flush valve is not mounted on the compliant side in violation of 

Section 4.16.5 of the ADAAG and Section 604.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution 

is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the toilet without assistance, as it is not mounted at the 

required distance from the side wall. Violation: The water closet is mounted at a non-compliant 

distance from the side wall, violating Section 4.16.2 and Figure 28 of the ADAAG and Section 

604.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 7 of 11
8

iii. The Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not 

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory pipes are not fully wrapped or maintained violating Section 

4.19.4 of the ADAAG and Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the mirror, as it is mounted too high. Violation: The mirrors 

provided in the restrooms are in violation of the requirements in Section 4.19.6 of the ADAAG 

and Section 603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

27. The discriminatory violations described in Paragraph 26 are not an exclusive list 

of the Defendants’ ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendants’ places of 

public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts violating 

the ADA and barriers to access in conjunction with Rule 34 and timely notice. Plaintiff further 

requests to inspect any and all barriers to access that were concealed by virtue of the barriers' 

presence, which prevented Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, from further ingress, use, and equal 

enjoyment of the Commercial Business and businesses located within the Commercial Property; 

Plaintiff requests to be physically present at such inspection in conjunction with Rule 34 and timely 

notice. A complete list of the Subject Premises’ ADA violations, and the remedial measures 

necessary to remove same, will require an on-site inspection by Plaintiff’s representatives pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

28. The individual Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly situated, have been 

denied access to, and have been denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities 

privileges, benefits, programs and activities offered by Defendants, Defendants’ buildings, 

businesses and facilities; and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the 

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 8 of 11
9

Defendants because of the Defendants’ ADA violations as set forth above. The individual 

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 

accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

29. Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him 

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. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendants continue to 

discriminate against 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.

30. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, will suffer irreparable harm, and has

a clear legal right to the relief sought. Further, injunctive relief will serve the public interest and 

all those similarly situated to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is 

entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses from Defendants pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

31. A Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the 

physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for their place of public 

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 9 of 11
10

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

32. Notice to Defendants is not required as a result of the Defendants’ failure to cure 

the violations by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if a Defendants have 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.

33. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to alter the property where Defendants operate the 

businesses, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 2445 W Flagler Street, 

Miami, Florida, the exterior areas, and the common exterior areas of the Commercial Property and 

businesses located within the Commercial Property, to make those facilities readily accessible and 

useable to the Plaintiff and all other mobility-impaired persons; or by closing the facility until such 

time as the Defendants cure the violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendants at the commencement of the 

subject lawsuit were and are in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; (ii) Injunctive relief against Defendants including an order to make all 

readily achievable alterations to the facilities; or to make such facilities readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA; and to require Defendants

to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications 

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 10 of 11
11

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; (iii) An award of attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205; and (iv) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dated: June 19, 2020

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4937 S.W. 74th Court

Miami, Florida 33155

Telephone: (305) 553-3464

Facsimile: (305) 553-3031

Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

Secondary E-Mails: bvirues@lawgmp.com

 aquezada@lawgmp.com

By: ___/s/_Anthony J. Perez________

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No.: 535451

BEVERLY VIRUES

Florida Bar No.: 123713

Case 1:20-cv-22538-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 11 of 11