UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DAVID POSCHMANN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.

511 CAROLINE STREET, LLC and 

CURRY MANSION CORPORATION,

Defendants.

_______________________________________ /

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, David Poschmann, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby sues the 

Defendants, 511 CAROLINE STREET, LLC and CURRY MANSION CORPORATION, for 

injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181, et seq. (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 judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because 

Defendants are residents of this district and the facility, whose online reservation system is at 

issue herein, is situated in this district.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, David Poschmann, is an individual 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

Case 2:20-cv-14200-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 1 of 6
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. Defendants' online hotel reservation system fails to comply with any of the 

requirements of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e) and therefore Plaintiffs full and equal enjoyment of the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered thereon are 

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

and until Defendants are compelled to cure the substantive ADA violations contained on the 

hotel's online reservation system. Plaintiff intends to visit the online reservation system for 

Defendant's hotel in the near future, and within thirty (30) days, to book a hotel room and utilize 

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

and/or to test the online reservation system for compliance with 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e).

4. Defendants are the owners and operators of Amsterdam's Curry Mansion Inn, 

located at 511 Caroline Street in Key West, Florida ("the Hotel"). The online reservation system 

for the Hotel is found at www.currymansion.com.

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)).

2

Case 2:20-cv-14200-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 2 of 6
6. 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. Public accommodations, including places of lodging, were required to 

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

7. On March 15, 2012, new regulations implementing Title III of the ADA took 

effect, imposing significant new obligations on inns, motels, hotels and other "places of 

lodging". 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e) states:

"(1) Reservations made by places o f lodging. A public accommodation that owns, leases 

(or leases to), or operates a place of lodging shall, with respect to reservations made by any 

means, including by telephone, in-person, or through a third party -

(i) Modify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that individuals with disabilities can 

make reservations for accessible guest rooms during the same hours and in the same manner 

as individuals who do not need accessible rooms;

(ii) Identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through its 

reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess 

independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs;1

(iii) Ensure that accessible guest rooms are held for use by individuals with disabilities until all 

other guest rooms of that type have been rented and the accessible room requested is the only 

remaining room of that type;

(iv) Reserve, upon request, accessible guest rooms or specific types of guest rooms and ensure 

that the guest rooms requested are blocked and removed from all reservations systems; and

(v) Guarantee that the specific accessible guest room reserved through its reservations service is 

held for the reserving customer, regardless of whether a specific room is held in response to 

reservations made by others."

1 The United States Department of Justice, in "28 C.F.R. Appendix A to Part 36, Guidance on Revisions to ADA 

Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities", 

provides a section-by-section analysis of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1). In its analysis and guidance, the Department of 

Justice's official comments state that "information about the Hotel should include, at a minimum, information about 

accessible entrances to the hotel, the path of travel to guest check-in and other essential services, and the accessible 

route to the accessible room or rooms. In addition to the room information described above, these hotels should 

provide information about important features that do not comply with the 1991 Standards." An agency's 

interpretation of its own regulations, such as the Department of Justice's interpretation of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1), 

must be given "substantial deference" and "controlling weight" unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with 

the regulation." Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994).

3

Case 2:20-cv-14200-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 3 of 6
8, The Hotel is a place of public accommodation that owns and/or leases and

operates a place of lodging pursuant to the ADA. The Hotel has an online reservation system 

whereby potential patrons may reserve a hotel room. The online hotel room reservation system is 

subject to the requirements of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e) and Defendants are responsible for said 

compliance.

9. Most recently, during June, 2020 Plaintiff attempted to specifically identify and 

book a guaranteed reservation for an accessible hotel room at the Hotel through the Hotel's 

online reservation system but was unable to do so due to Defendants' failure to comply with the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 7.

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

pursuant to Houston v. Marodt Supermarkets, 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, including online reservation systems for places of lodging, are 

in compliance with the ADA.

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

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

accommodations offered through the Hotel's online reservation system due to the substantive 

ADA violations contained thereon.

12. The online reservation system for Defendants' Hotel encountered by Plaintiff 

when he visited it failed to comply with any of the requirements of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1). 

When Plaintiff visited the Hotel's online reservation system he tried to make a reservation for an 

accessible hotel room at the Hotel, since he requires an accessible unit due to the amputation of 

his right leg, but it was not possible to make such a reservation. It was possible to reserve a room

4

Case 2:20-cv-14200-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 4 of 6
that was not accessible. For this reason Defendants have no policy, practice, or procedure in 

place to ensure that individuals with disabilities can make reservations for accessible hotel rooms 

during the same hours and in the same manner as individuals who do not need accessible hotel 

rooms. This constitutes a violation of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(l)(i). When Plaintiff visited the 

Flotel's online reservation system he searched the site for the identification and descriptions of 

accessible features in the Flotel and hotel rooms offered through the reservations service so that 

he could assess independently whether the Hotel or a specific hotel room met his accessibility 

needs in light of his disability but the reservations service contained no such descriptions at all. 

This constitutes a violation of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(l)(ii). In light of the foregoing, Defendants 

also necessarily violated 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)( 1 )(iii)-(v) in that since the online reservations 

service does not describe any accessible hotel room and does not, in turn, allow the reserving of 

such accessible hotel rooms, the Website cannot hold such unavailable accessible hotel rooms in 

the reservations system until all other rooms have been rented, block such unavailable accessible 

hotel rooms from the system once reserved, and guaranty that such unavailable accessible hotel 

rooms will be held for the reserving customer as required by sections (iii) - (v) respectively.

13. 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 correct the ADA violations to the online reservation system for their 

Hotel and maintain the online reservation system and accompanying policies in a manner that is 

consistent with and compliant with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e).

14. 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.

5

Case 2:20-cv-14200-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 5 of 6
15. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), this Court is provided with authority to grant 

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

consistent with the ADA, to accommodate the disabled, by requiring Defendants to alter and 

maintain their online reservation system in accordance with the requirements set forth in

' j

paragraph 7 above.

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

injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing their discriminatory practices, ordering

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

through requiring Defendants to alter and maintain the online reservation system for the Hotel in

accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7 above, and awarding Plaintiff

reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, including expert fees, and costs.

s/Drew M. Levitt 

DREW M. LEVITT 

Florida Bar No: 782246 

dre wmlevitt@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

2

The injunction, to be meaningful and fulfill its intended purpose, should require Defendants to develop, and 

strictly enforce, a policy requiring regular monitoring of their online reservation system. As rates and classes of 

hotels rooms change at the Hotel, and the number and type of hotel rooms, beds, accommodations and amenities 

offered in the various hotel rooms change from time to time, the availability of accessible hotel rooms must be redispersed across these various price points, classes, as well as across hotel rooms with disparate features (2010 ADA 

Standard 224.5). In light of the foregoing, in addition to regular ongoing website maintenance and to reflect physical 

changes at the hotel, the online reservation system must continuously be updated to properly reflect and describe 

Defendants' compliance with the substantive ADA Standards regarding accessible hotel rooms in accordance with 

28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(1).

6

Case 2:20-cv-14200-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 6 of 6