UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DAVID POSCHMANN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.

EAST COAST PROPERTY INVESTMENT 

COMPANY and STAR ENTERPRISES OF 

SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________ /

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, DAVID POSCHMANN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby sues 

the Defendants, EAST COAST PROPERTY INVESTMENT COMPANY and STAR 

ENTERPRISES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans 

With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181, et seq. (hereinafter, the “ADA”) and in support thereof 

states as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction since this action arises pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 and §1343 and Plaintiffs claims arise under 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq. based upon 

Defendants' violations of Title III of the ADA.

VENUE

2. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the property 

that is the subject of this action is situated within this district and the events giving rise to the 

claims asserted herein occurred in this district.

Case 9:20-cv-80742-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 1 of 6
PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, David Poschmann, is an individual residing in this district who is over 

eighteen years of age and sui juris. Plaintiff is disabled as such term is defined by the ADA and 

is substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities due to the amputation of 

his right leg in 2012. Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. Plaintiff drives his own specially 

equipped vehicle and has a valid disabled parking permit from the Florida Department of 

Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Plaintiffs access to the premises described below 

(hereinafter, the “Property”), and his full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered at the Property were restricted and limited 

because of Plaintiff s disability and will be restricted in the future unless and until Defendants 

are compelled to cure the mobility-related ADA violations that exist at the Property, including 

those set forth in this Complaint.1 Plaintiff intends to return to the Property in the near future to 

avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public at the Property and/or in order to test 

the Property for compliance with the mobility-related provisions of the ADA.

4. Defendants transact business in this judicial district within the State of Florida by, 

inter alia, being the owner and operator of the Property, a BP gasoline station and convenience 

store known as Lucky 7 Food Store located at 4415 Broadway Avenue, West Palm Beach, 

Florida (including the adjoining grounds servicing the gasoline station and food store). 

Specifically, East Coast Property Investment Company owns the real property and building 

located at the property and Star Enterprises of South Florida, Inc. owns and operates the BP 

gasoline station and Lucky 7 Food Store at the Property.

1 The term "ADA violations", as used herein, means that the physical elements at issue violated the ADA's 

regulations and the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, originally published in 1991, as well as the 2010 

Standards that became effective on March 15, 2012.

2

Case 9:20-cv-80742-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 2 of 6
CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE ADA

5. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA explaining that the purpose of the 

ADA was to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to provide clear, strong, consistent, 

enforceable standards addressing said discrimination, invoking the sweep of congressional 

authority in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with 

disabilities to ensure that the Federal government plays a central role in enforcing the standards 

set by the ADA. (42 U.S.C. § 12101 (b)(l)-(4)).

6. Places of public accommodation were provided with one and a half years from the 

enactment of the ADA to implement the requirements imposed by the ADA. The effective date 

of Title III of the ADA was January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993 if the defendant had ten or 

fewer employees and gross receipts of $500,000.00 or less).

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

2

to conform to these regulations on or before March 15, 2012.

8. The Property is a place of public accommodation pursuant to the ADA.

9. Most recently, in April, 2020 Plaintiff attempted to, and to the extent possible, 

accessed the Property but could not fully do so because of his disability due to the mobility- 2

2 "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.

3

Case 9:20-cv-80742-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 3 of 6
related ADA violations as well as Defendants' mobility-related discriminatory policies towards 

the disabled that exist at the Property that preclude and/or limit his access to the Property and/or 

the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein, 

including the ADA violations set forth in this Complaint.

10. Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and, 

pursuant to Houston v. MarodSupermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013), is a "tester" 

for the purpose of asserting his civil rights, monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether 

places of public accommodation are in compliance with the ADA.

11. Plaintiff intends to visit the Property again in the near future in order to test the 

Property for compliance with the mobility-related provisions of the ADA and/or to utilize the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered at the Property.

12. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him access to and full 

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

accommodations offered at the Property in violation of the ADA and will continue to 

discriminate against Plaintiff unless and until Defendants implement policies, consistent with the 

ADA, to accommodate the disabled and is compelled to remove all mobility-related barriers that 

exist at the Property.

13. The mobility-related unlawful physical barriers and ADA violations encountered 

and/or known by Plaintiff which preclude or limit Plaintiffs ability (because of Plaintiff s 

disability) to access the Property and/or fully and equally enjoy the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Property, include (the applicable sections 

of the STANDARDS are also denoted3):

3 The 2010 Standards are denoted because the required remediation will occur after March 15, 2012 and thus must 

comply with these standards.

4

Case 9:20-cv-80742-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 4 of 6
a) Non-compliant accessible routes including non-compliant route from the gasoline 

pumps to the entrance of the convenience store, non-compliant route from the 

disabled person parking space to the entrance to the convenience store and noncompliant connection from the convenience store to the public sidewalk (in 

violation of STANDARDS 206, 402, 403, 404 and 405);

b) Lack of disabled person directional signage (in violation of STANDARDS 

216 and 703.4.2);

c) Non-compliant elements in the restroom including but not limited to noncompliant lavatory, non-compliant grab bars and non-compliant maneuvering 

space (in violation of STANDARDS 603 and 604);

d) Non-compliant disabled person parking and access aisle (in violation of 

STANDARDS 208 and 502);

e) Lack of compliant disabled person signage (in violation of STANDARD 216) and

f) Non-compliant service counter (in violation of STANDARDS 227 and 904).

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

set forth herein is readily achievable and is technically feasible. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) 

and 42 U.S.C. §12183(a)(2).

15. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm 

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

Defendants are required to remove the mobility-related physical ADA violations as well as their 

mobility-related discriminatory policies towards the disabled that exist at the Property, including 

those set forth herein, and continually maintain the Property in an ADA compliant condition.

16. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of this 

action and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses from Defendants, 

including litigation expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205.

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

permanent injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including an Order compelling Defendants to implement

5

Case 9:20-cv-80742-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 5 of 6
policies, consistent with the ADA, to accommodate the disabled and to alter the property to make 

it readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff as required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, David Poschmann, requests that the Court issue a permanent 

injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing their mobility-related discriminatory practices, 

ordering Defendants to implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to accommodate the 

disabled and to remove the mobility-related physical barriers to access and alter the subject 

Property to make it readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff as required by the ADA, and 

awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, including expert fees, and 

costs.

s/Drew M. Levitt 

DREW M. LEVITT 

Florida Bar No: 782246 

drewmlevitt@gmail. com 

LEE D. SARKIN 

Florida Bar No. 962848 

Lsarkin@aol.com

4700 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard, Ste. 302 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone (561) 994-6922 

Facsimile (561) 994-0837 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6

Case 9:20-cv-80742-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 6 of 6