UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

Luda Cannon

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAX INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC

Defendant.

_________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff residing at 524 West Main St. Maple Shade, New Jersey

Hereby sues the Defendant JAX INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC a Florida 

corporation 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, damages 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 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

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

1. Plaintiff, is an individual whom is a citizen residing at 

524 West Main Street. Maple Shade Burlington County, New Jersey. 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

For approximately five months she resides in Florida and is a 

frequent traveler to Fort Pierce and the Defendants’ business. 

2. Defendant’s business is public accommodation, located at 

7049 Okeechobee Road, Fort Pierce St. Lucie County, Florida. It 

contains a Mobile gas station a connivance store and a Dunkin 

Donuts. During the current corona virus 19 crisis defendant has 

charge over a dollar per more gallon than its neighbor gas 

stations does not provide or have its employees wear masks or 

gloves and allows patrons to share picnic tables. 

3. Venue is properly located in this district the property 

which is the subject of this case of is in Florida. The 

Defendants’ property is located in St. Lucie 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. 

5. Plaintiff Cannon qualifies as an individual with 

disabilities as defined by the ADA. She has orthopedic and 

neurological disabilities. Plaintiff ambulates by means of a 

walker and manual wheelchair and is unable to walk without 

assistance. She has reduced ability to push and pull. She also 

has a heart disability and is a kidney transplant survivor.

6. Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations 

implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104. Defendant is 

responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The 

place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, 

leases or leases is located at 7049 Okeechobee Rd. Fort Pierce , 

Florida 34945.

7.

8. Cannon 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 he will 

continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the 

ADA by the Defendant. Cannon desires to visit the subject public 

accommodation not only to avail himself of the goods and 

services available at the property but to assure himself that 

this property is in compliance with the ADA so that he and 

others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of 

the property without fear of discrimination.

9. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual 

Plaintiff by denying her 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.

10. The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

discriminate, against the Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by 

failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by January 

26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer 

employees and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). A preliminary 

inspection of Defendants property has shown that violations 

exist. These violations that personally encountered, and which 

were verified by an ADA expert, indicated but are not limited 

to:

11. The Plaintiff has on many occasions enjoyed the services of the Defendant 

on her way back and from New Jersey in that the Defendants business is 

adjacent to the Florida Turnpike as well as interstate 95. Plaintiff is a 

patron and fond of the brand of Dunkin Donuts which is the Defendants’ public 

accommodation. She also stops there to enjoy the beaches of Vero Beach and 

the fruits of Indian River County which is on the way and near the defendant. 

She also has visited intentionally 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 she has been a patron on many occasions 

including May 9, 2020 , May 2, 2020 and April 29, 2020. 

12. Her ability to use the public accommodation was greatly impaired because 

of physical barriers. 

13. Below mentioned is the following barriers:

14.Exterior:

Exterior routes into the store and Dunkin donuts from the 

commons and parking. 

a. There is no accessible route within the site from parking 

 spaces and accessible parking public streets and sidewalks; 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

 public transportation. ADAAG 206.2.1.

b. The public accommodation ADAAG 206, 206.2 Specially, the 

route provided to the entrances has physical barriers. 

containing of too steep slopes and cross slopes without a 

level landing in violation ADAAG 206, 206.2, 401, 402,403, 

404, 405, 406, et al. These barriers impair her use of the 

defendant’ services. 

15.Bathrooms

a. The mirrors are too high. The mirror is at a height of 46 

inches when the maximum is 40 inches. ADAAG 603.3

b. There is no accessible sink because there is no proper 

clear floor space with proper knee and toe clearance. 

ADAAG 306.604.5.1.3. This impairs plaintiffs’ use of the 

bathroom because there is no clear space she cannot

property use the sink. 

c. In the stall there is improper hardware on the sink. ADAAG 

604.9.5.

d. The toilet paper dispenser does not provide proper flow. 

ADAG 604.

e. The baby changing station blocks the route within the 

stall. ADAAG 603.2 and 28 CFR 36.211. 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

f. There is no installation on the plumbing which creates a

 safety hazard. ADAAG 606.5.

g. The hook on the door stall height is too high exceeding 40 

inches. ADAAG 603.4.

h. There is no accessible stall because the door in the stall 

 stays open. ADAAG 604.8.1.2. Cannon is impaired in using 

 the stall having no privacy in using same. 

i. These barriers impair her use of the bathroom. 

16.Parking. 

There is no accessible parking in that the space provided for 

the disabled is on a slope that exceeds 2%. ADAAG 502.4.

17.Interior door.

a. There is an improper route clearance from the interior door

into Dunkin Donuts from the general stor because of an ATM 

machine. ADAAG 4.3.2(4) and 28 CFR sec 36.211.

Maintenance.

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

creating barriers to access for the Plaintiff, as set forth 

herein, in violation of §28 CFR §36.211. 

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 in are 

not an exclusive list of the Defendants’ ADA violations. 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

Plaintiff requires the inspection of the Defendants’ place of 

public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of 

the discriminatory acts violating the ADA and all of the 

barriers to access. The individual Plaintiff and all other 

individuals similarly situated, have been denied access to, and 

have been denied the benefits of services, programs and 

activities of the Defendants buildings and its facilities, and 

have otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the 

Defendant 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.

20. Defendant has 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. 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 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

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 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 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

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.

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 

Defendant on her way back to New Jersey in that the Defendants 

business is adjudant to the Florida Turnpike as well as 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 10 of 12
11

interstate 95 in that she is a patron and fond of the brand of 

Dunkin Donuts. She also intends to stop there to enjoy the 

beaches of Vero Beach which is on the way and near the 

defendant. She also to return in November to enjoy the new crop 

of oranges in Indian River County. She also intends to be a 

tester as well as a patron to ensure compliance with the ADA and 

will return on many occasions including the Thanksgiving 

weekend. Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, 733. F. 3d 1323 (11th 

cir. 2013).

19. The plaintiff assets 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 - 760.11. 

20. Prior to filing this suit the undersigned investigated 

whether the site has been filed. It has not been sued. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests:

a. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that 

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 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 11 of 12
12

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 10, 2020. S/ Anthony J. Brady Jr. 

Anthony J. Brady, Jr., Esq. 

604 Banyan Trail, 

811362

Boca Raton, FL 33431

(561) 603-6387

Ladbrady@gmail.com.

Florida bar number 100366.

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

Case 2:20-cv-14147-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 12 of 12