UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 

DOUG LONGHINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC and YNDI 

FOOD INC.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC and

YNDI FOOD 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, DOUG LONGHINI, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

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

5. At all material times, Defendant 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC and operated a 

commercial property at 2712 NW 95th St. Miami, Florida (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) 

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in MiamiDade County, Florida.

6. At all material times Defendant 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC was a Florida

Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of the state of Florida with its principal place 

of business in Miramar, Florida and conducted a substantial amount of business in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

7. At all material times, Defendant YNDI FOOD INC. owned and operated a retail 

supermarket business at 2712 NW 95th St. Miami, Florida (hereinafter the “Commercial 

Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation 

in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendants holds itself out to the public as “Price Choice.”

8. At all material times Defendant YNDI FOOD INC. was a Florida Profit 

Corporation organized under the laws of the state of Florida, with its principal place of business in 

Miami, Florida and conducted a substantial amount of business in Miami-Dade County, 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, Florida, and because a substantial part(s) of the events or omissions 

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Although over twenty-eight (28) 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

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

and properties.

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, 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 

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. 

14. Defendants, 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC and YNDI FOOD INC., own, 

operate and oversee the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. 

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 September 19, 2019 and May 7, 

2020, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and 

enjoy the Commercial Property and businesses 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 twenty-two (22) 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

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

Complaint. 

17. Plaintiff is the President of National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. and often 

travels through South Florida to conduct outreach activities on behalf of National Alliance for 

Accessibility, Inc. Many members and prospective members have transportation difficulties which 

requires Plaintiff to travel to visit members and prospective members. 

18. Plaintiff resides nearby in the same County and state as the Commercial Property

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. 

19. 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.

20. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

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

similarly situated.

21. Defendants, 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC and YNDI FOOD INC., own and

operate a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing 

the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendants, 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC and YNDI 

FOOD INC., are responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The place of public 

accommodation that Defendants, 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC and YNDI FOOD INC., own

and operate the Commercial Property Business located at 2712 NW 95th St. Miami, Florida.

22. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, 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 27 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.

23. Defendant, 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC as landlord and owner of the 

Commercial Property, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in Paragraph 27 of this 

Complaint. Defendant YNDI FOOD INC. as tenant is jointly and severally liable responsible for 

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

all the ADA violations listed in Paragraph 27 of this Complaint.

24. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, 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 

necessarily limited to the allegations in Paragraph 27 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. 

25. 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

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

through 25 above as though fully set forth herein.

27. Defendants, 2712 NW 95TH STREET, LLC and YNDI FOOD INC., have

discriminated, and continue 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 Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

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 Commercial Property, include but are not limited to, 

the following:

A. Parking

i. There are accessible parking spaces with signs that are mounted too low, violating Section 

4.6.4 of the ADAAG and Section 502.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

ii. The Plaintiff could not reach the ticket counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: There are 

self-service areas with elements that are outside of the reach ranges prescribed in Sections 

4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.27.3 of the ADAAG and Section 308 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

C. Public Restrooms

i. There are permanently designated interior spaces without proper signage, violating Section 

4.1.3(16) and 4.30 of the ADAAG and Sections 216.2 and 703 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

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

clearance was not provided due to the location of a trashcan. Violation: The restroom door 

does not provide the required latch side clearance due to a lack of maintenance violating 

Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

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 lavatory without assistance, as objects are located underneath 

it. Violation: There are lavatories in public restrooms without the required toe clearance 

provided, violating the requirements in Section 4.19.2 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 

Sections 306.2 & 606.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. 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.

vi. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the side grab bar is not at the 

required location. Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed in 

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

Section 4.16.4 & Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 604.5.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

vii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the locking mechanism on the restroom door without 

assistance, as it requires tight grasping and it is mounted too high. Violation: The restroom 

door has non-compliant hardware for disabled patrons, violating Sections 4.13.9, 4.27.3, & 

4.27.4 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.3, 309.4, & 404.2.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

viii. The Plaintiff could not enter the restroom without assistance, as the door width is too narrow. 

Violation: The clear width at restroom doors is less than the prescribed minimums violating 

Section 4.13.5 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

ix. The Plaintiff had difficulty entering the restroom without assistance, as the door threshold is 

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

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

whose resolution is readily achievable.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

28. The discriminatory violations described in Paragraph 27 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, DOUG LONGHINI, from further ingress, use, and equal 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

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.

29. 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 

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.

30. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 10 of 12
11

individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services.

31. 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. 

32. Defendants are 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 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. 

33. 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 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 Defendants.

34. 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 operates its

businesses, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 2712 NW 95th St. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 11 of 12
12

such time as the Defendants cure the violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, 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 

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 15, 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-22467-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2020 Page 12 of 12