UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JESUS GONZALEZ,

 Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 

v. 

AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. d/b/a 

AMERICAN SIGNATURE FURNITURE, 

Defendant.

_______________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JESUS GONZALEZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues Defendant AMERICAN 

SIGNATURE, INC. d/b/a AMERICAN SIGNATURE FURNITURE (hereinafter “Defendant”),

for injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including but not limited to disbursements, court 

expenses and fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (hereinafter “AMERICANS WITH 

DISABILITIES ACT” or “ADA”) and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines 28 C.F.R. Part 36 

(hereinafter “ADAAG”), and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to Title III 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. This Court is vested with 

original jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343. 

2. Venue is proper and lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 in that the 

transaction or occurrence giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the Southern District of Florida. 

THE PARTIES

3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, JESUS GONZALEZ, was and is over the age 

of 18 years, sui juris, and a resident of the State of Florida. 

Case 1:20-cv-22506-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 1 of 8
2

4. Plaintiff has at all material times suffered from a “qualified disability” under the 

ADA. Plaintiff cannot walk independently and must use a wheelchair for mobility purposes.

5. Defendant, AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. is an Ohio authorized to do business 

in Florida, and doing business as AMERICAN SIGNATURE FURNITURE, located at 7775 SW 

40th St, Miami, FL 33155 (The “Subject Property”). 

6. On February 8, 2020, Plaintiff visited the Subject Property, and purchased home 

furnishings. Plaintiff also applied for an American Signature Furniture credit card and was 

approved. Plaintiff intends to return to the Subject Property in the future, more than once, to use 

the credit card and purchase additional furnishings. 

7. Plaintiff was denied full access to the facilities at the Subject Property, and/or any 

accommodations offered to the public therein, in that Plaintiff was restricted and limited by his 

disabilities, and therefore suffered an injury in fact. As of this filing, Plaintiff remains unable to 

make full use of the Subject Property and continues to be discriminated against (and thus injured) 

by architectural barriers to access that remain at the Subject Property in violation of the ADA.

8. All events giving rise to the instant action occurred in Miami, Florida. Venue is 

proper in the Southern District of Florida in that the Subject Property is located in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA

9. Plaintiff re-avers and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, as though fully set 

forth herein. 

10. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12101, et seq. 

Case 1:20-cv-22506-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 2 of 8
3

11. Congress specifically found, inter alia, that:1

a. Some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and 

this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older;

b. Historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with 

disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals 

with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem;

c. Discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas of 

employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, 

recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services;

d. Individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, 

including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, 

and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to 

existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and 

relegation to lesser service, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities; and,

e. The continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice 

denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those 

opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous and costs the United States billions 

of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and non-productivity. 

12. Congress explicitly set forth the purpose of the ADA; to wit:2

(i) Provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

1 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(1) – (3), (5), and (9). 

2 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (1) (2) and (4).

Case 1:20-cv-22506-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 3 of 8
4

(ii) Provide a clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standard addressing discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities; and,

(iii) Invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the 

fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of 

discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.

13. The congressional legislation gave places of public accommodation a time period 

of up to one and a half years from the enactment of the ADA to implement the requirements 

imposed by the ADA. 

14. The effective date of Title III of the ADA was January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 

1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of $500,000.00 or less).3

15. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), on July 26, 1991, the Department 

of Justice, Office of Attorney General, promulgated federal regulations to implement the 

requirements of the ADA (the “ADAAG”).4

16. Upon information and belief, the Subject Property has begun operations, and/or has 

undergone substantial remodeling, repairs and/or alterations since January 26, 1992, and/or has 

sufficient income to make readily achievable accessibility modifications.

17. Public accommodations were required to conform to these regulations by January 

26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

$500,000.00 or less).5

18. The Subject Property is legally required to be, but is not, in compliance with the 

ADA and ADAAG.

3 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 36.508(a).

4 29 C.F.R. Part 36.

5 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 36.508(a).

Case 1:20-cv-22506-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 4 of 8
5

19. Such non-compliance includes but is not limited to the following issues 

encountered by Plaintiff in the men’s room: 

a. The entry door required more than 5 pounds of force to open in violation of the 

2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design at sections 213, 404.2.9. 

b. The mirror was improperly mounted above the maximum height allowed under the 

ADA in violation of sections 213, 601, 603.3.

c. The sink pipes were not insulated in violation of sections 213, 601, 606.5. 

d. The sanitary seat cover dispenser was improperly mounted outside the mandated 

reach range in violation of sections 308. 

e. The side grab bar was improperly mounted less than the required distance from the 

rear wall in violation of sections 213, 601, 604.5.1.

f. The hardware on the men’s restroom door required tight grasping, pinching, and 

twisting of the wrists to operate and in violation of section 309.4. 

g. The door hardware to exit the restroom was improperly mounted above the height 

permitted by the ADA at section 308.2.1.

h. The trash container was improperly located denying access to the paper towel 

dispenser in violation of section 305.3. 

20. This is not intended as a complete list of ADA and ADAAG violations at the 

Subject Property. Additional violations will be set forth within Plaintiff’s expert disclosures and 

report, following inspection made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 

21. These violations, which include but are not limited to those enumerated herein, 

prohibit Plaintiff from safely accessing the Subject Property, and/or the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein.

Case 1:20-cv-22506-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 5 of 8
6

22. Remediating the ADA and ADAAG violations set forth herein is both technically 

feasible and readily achievable. 

23. Plaintiff intends to visit the Subject Property again in the future in order to utilize 

all of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered at the 

Subject Property; however, in light of his disabilities, unless and until the Subject Property is 

brought into full compliance with the ADA and its implementing regulations, Plaintiff will remain 

unable to fully, properly, and safely access the Subject Property and/or the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein.

24. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant have 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 Subject Property. Defendant’

discrimination is specifically prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182, et seq. 

25. Moreover, Defendant will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with 

disabilities unless and until it is compelled by this Court to remove all physical barriers upon the 

Subject Property which violate the ADA and ADAAG, including but not limited to those 

specifically set forth herein, and to make the Subject Property, accessible to and usable by persons 

with disabilities, including Plaintiff by making appropriate alternations to policies and procedures. 

26. 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

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

upon the Subject Property, including but not limited to those set forth herein.

27. This Court is vested with authority to grant injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff, 

including entry of an Order requiring alteration and modification of the Subject Property, and/or 

Case 1:20-cv-22506-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 6 of 8
7

alteration and modifications to Defendant’ policies and procedures, so as to make the Subject 

Property readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by 

law. 

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

prosecution of this action, and has agreed to pay counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

litigation expenses, all of which are recoverable against the Defendant.

6

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

29. Plaintiff will continue to experience unlawful discrimination because of Defendant’ 

failure to comply with the ADA. 

30. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Honorable Court is vested with the authority to 

grant injunctive relief in favor of the Plaintiff, including but not limited to the issuance of an Order 

to alter the Subject Property so that they are made readily accessible to, and useable by, all 

individuals with disabilities, including Plaintiff, as required pursuant to the ADA, and closing the 

facilities until the requisite modifications are complete. 

31. Therefore, injunctive relief is necessary to order Defendant to alter and modify their 

place of public accommodation, their policies, business practices, operations and procedures. 

32. Injunctive relief is also necessary to make the Subject Property readily accessible 

and useable by Plaintiff in accordance with the ADA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against the Defendant, jointly and 

severally, and requests the following injunctive and declaratory relief:

a) A declaration that the Subject Property owned, leased, operated, and/or controlled 

by Defendant is in violation of the ADA; 

6 42 U.S.C. §§ 12205, 12117 

Case 1:20-cv-22506-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 7 of 8
8

b) An Order requiring Defendant to evaluate and neutralize their policies, practices 

and procedures towards individuals with disabilities, for such reasonable time to allow the 

Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures to Subject Property;

c) An Order requiring Defendant to alter their facilities and amenities to make them 

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities as required pursuant to Title III of the 

ADA; 

d) An Order issuing a permanent injunction ordering Defendant to close the Subject 

Property and cease all business until Defendant remove all violations under the ADA, including 

but not limited to the violations set forth herein; 

e) An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, disbursements and other expenses 

associated with this action, in favor of the Plaintiff; and

f) For such other and further relief that this Court deems just, necessary and proper.

DATED this 18th day of June, 2020. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500

 Boca Raton, FL 33431

 PH:(954) 745-0588

 By: /s/ Nolan Klein, Esq.

 NOLAN K. KLEIN, ESQUIRE

 Florida Bar No. 647977

 klein@nklegal.com

 amy@nklegal.com

Case 1:20-cv-22506-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 8 of 8