UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

DOUG LONGHINI, 

Plaintiff,

v.

GARSAN INVESTMENTS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues GARSAN INVESTMENTS, INC.

(hereinafter “Defendant”), 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. 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 and 

1343. 

2. 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.

3. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

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

4. At all times material, Defendant, GARSAN INVESTMENTS, INC., was and is a 
2

Florida Profit Corporation with its principal place of business in Hialeah, Florida. 

5. At all times material, Defendant, GARSAN INVESTMENTS, INC., owned a

commercial property located at 4680 W 17th Court, Hialeah, Florida (the “Commercial Property”).

6. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant’s 

Property that is the subject of this Action, is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and 

Defendant regularly conducts 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 at the Property.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

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

Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its commercial property accessible to individuals

with disabilities.

8. 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, Defendant continues to discriminate against 

people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant’s Property and 

the businesses therein.

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

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance

10. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

pursuant to the ADA. DOUG LONGHINI uses a wheelchair to ambulate. DOUG LONGHINI

has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping

or twisting of the wrist. He also has a great deal of trouble walking or otherwise ambulating 
3

without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but 

not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. 

11. Defendant, owns and operates the Property which is located at 4680 W 17th 

Court, Hialeah, Florida that are the subject of this Action. The subject Property and the business 

located therein are open to the public, and located in Hialeah, Florida. 

12. The individual Plaintiff frequently visits the Property (including the related 

parking lots and common areas) to include a visit on or about February 14, 2020 and encountered 

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

businesses therein. He often visits the Property and business therein, when he is in the area 

visiting family and friends that reside nearby, and has definite plans to return to the Property within 

two (2) month of the filing of this Complaint in order to avail himself of the goods and services 

offered to the public at the Property, if it becomes accessible. 

13. Plaintiff visited the Property and businesses located therein as a patron/customer, 

and intends to return to the commercial Property in order to avail himself of the goods and services 

offered to the public at the Property. Plaintiff resides near the Property, approximately seventeen

(17) miles from the Property, in the same state and county as the Property, regularly frequents the 

Defendants’ Property for its intended purposes, and intends to return to the commercial property

within two (2) months’ time. 

14. Despite the fact this Defendant has been sued for ADA violations previously,

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

architectural barriers at the subject commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and 

use of the commercial property and the business therein.

15. The Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, has encountered architectural barriers that are 
4

in violation of the ADA, at the Property. The barriers to access at Defendant’s Property have each 

denied or diminished Plaintiff’s ability to visit the Property and businesses therein and likewise 

endangered his safety. The barriers to access, which are set forth below, have accordingly posed 

a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, and others 

similarly situated.

16. Defendant 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. Defendant is 

responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation 

(the buildings and business property that is the subject of this Action for their violations of the 

ADA) that Defendant owns and operates, is the Property referenced above.

17. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing

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

described Property, including, but not necessarily limited to the allegations in Paragraph 19 of this 

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

discrimination at the Property and businesses therein which are open to the public and in violation 

of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Property not only to avail himself of the goods and 

services available at the Property, but to also assure himself that this commercial property is in 

compliance with the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal 

enjoyment of the commercial property without fear of discrimination.

18. Defendant has 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 properties the businesses thereon, in a manner prohibited by 42 

U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

19. Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against Plaintiff in 
5

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

January 26, 1993, if a Defendant has 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 Defendant’s 

commercial property and businesses therein, include, but are not limited to, the following:

Common Areas

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. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as there are cross slopes in excess of 

2%. Violation: The path of travel contains excessive cross slopes in violation of Section 4.3.7 

of the ADAAG and Section 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff could not enter tenant spaces without assistance, as the required level landing is 

not provided. Violation: A level landing that is 60 inches minimum perpendicular to the 

doorway is not provided at accessible entrances violating Section 4.13.6 and Figure 25(a) of 
6

the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it was not continuous and accessible. 

Violation: There are inaccessible routes between sections of the facility. These are violations 

of the requirements in Sections 4.3.2(2), 4.3, and 4.5 of the ADAAG and Sections 206.2.2, 

303, 402 and 403, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff had difficulty entering tenant spaces without assistance, as the entrance thresholds 

are too high. Violation: There are threshold rises in excess of 1⁄2 inch at the tenant entrances, 

violating Section 4.13.8 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it was not continuous and accessible. 

Violation: There are inaccessible routes from the public sidewalk and transportation stop. 

These are violations of the requirements in Sections 4.3.2(1), 4.3.8, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2 of the 

ADAAG and Sections 206.2.1, 302.1, 303, and 402.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

Las Casitas

A. 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.

B. Public Restrooms
7

i. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the doorknob and the locking mechanism on the restroom 

door without assistance, as they require tight grasping. Violation: The restroom door has noncompliant hardware for disabled patrons, violating Sections 4.13.9 & 4.27.4 of the ADAAG 

and Sections 309.4 & 404.2.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

ii. 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.

iii. The Plaintiff could not use the soap bottle without assistance, as it requires a tight grasp to 

operate. Violation: The soap dispensers require a tight grasp to operate in violation of Section 

4.27.4 of the ADAAG and Section 309.4 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.

v. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the toilet paper due to the roll not being located within a 

dispenser. Violation: Elements in the restroom are not readily accessible and usable by persons 

with disabilities, violating 28 CFR 36.211, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vi. 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 
8

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.

vii. 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.

viii. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the rear grab bar is missing, 

the side grab bar is not mounted at the required height, and the side grab bar is not the required 

length. Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Section 

4.16.4 & Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.5 & 609.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

ix. The Plaintiff could not use the paper towel dispenser without assistance, as it is mounted too 

high. Violation: There are dispensers provided for public use in the restroom, with controls 

outside the ranges prescribed in Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.27.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 

308 & 309.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

x. The Plaintiff could not exit the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance is not provided. Violation: The restroom door does not provide the required latch 

side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

20. The discriminatory violations described in Paragraph 19 are not an exclusive list

of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendant’s place 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 
9

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

presence, which prevented Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, from further ingress, use, and equal 

enjoyment of the commercial property and businesses therein; Plaintiff requests to be physically 

present at such inspection in conjunction with Rule 34 and timely notice.

21. 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 Defendant, Defendant’s buildings, the 

businesses and facilities therein; and have otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by 

the Defendant because of the Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s place of public 

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

Disabilities Act.

22. 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. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendant continues 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.
10

23. 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 Defendant pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505.

24. 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

accommodation, The Plaintiff and those 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 require an inspection of the 

Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

25. 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 a 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.

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

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to alter the commercial property owned and operated 

by the Defendant, located in Hialeah, Florida, the interiors, exterior areas, and the common exterior 

areas of the property and businesses therein 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 cures their violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendant at the commencement 

of the subject lawsuit is in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 
11

§ 12181 et seq.; (ii) Injunctive relief against Defendant 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 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; (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: March 25th, 2020.

 GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 4937 S.W. 74th Court, No. 3

 Miami, FL 33155

 Telephone: (305) 553-3464

 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031

 Primary E-Mail: ajperezlaw@gmail.com

Secondary E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com

aquezada@lawgmp.com

By: /s/ Anthony J. Perez 

 ANTHONY J. PEREZ

 Florida Bar No.: 535451

BEVERLY VIRUES

Florida Bar No.: 123713