UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JESUS GONZALEZ, an individual,

 Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 

v. 

CARIBBEAN INVESTMENT AMERICA LLC, 

d/b/a VILLA ITALIA HOTEL, 

Defendant.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JESUS GONZALEZ, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues Defendant, CARIBBEAN 

INVESTMENT AMERICA LLC d/b/a VILLA ITALIA HOTEL (hereinafter “Defendant”), for 

injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs, including but not limited to disbursements, 

court expenses, and other fees, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 

et seq. (“ADA”) and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36 (hereinafter 

“ADAAG”), and alleges: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Defendant owns and/or operates that certain hotel known as VILLA ITALIA MIAMI, 

located in Miami Beach, Florida (the “Hotel”). The Hotel takes reservations through the 

Defendant’s website located at www.villaitaliamiami.com (the “Website”), and provides 

information regarding available guestrooms and amenities. 

2. As of March 15, 2012, Defendant was required to ensure that all of its reservation systems, 

including its online reservation systems (a) identify and describe disabled accessible features of 

the Hotel in detail; (b) identify and describe disabled accessible features of ADA compliant guest 

rooms in detail; (c) permit disabled individuals to independently assess whether the Hotel and its 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 1 of 13
2

available guestrooms meet their individual accessibility needs (by describing accessible and 

inaccessible features); and (d) allow reservations to be taken for accessible guestrooms in the same 

manner as for non-accessible guestrooms.1 Defendant has not complied. This lawsuit follows. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C., 

§§1331, 1343, as Plaintiff’s claims arise under 42 U.S.C. §12181. et seq., based upon the 

enumerated violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (see also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202). 

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action. Defendant owns or 

operates the Website, which is an interactive website through which Defendant seeks to 

consummate financial transaction (reservations and payments) with residents of this District (and 

others) who visit the Website, and Defendant violated Plaintiff’s civil rights in this District, as set 

forth more fully below. 

5. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2), because a substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to the claims here at issue occurred in this District; Plaintiff 

encountered Defendant’s ADA violations in this District, and the injury to Plaintiff here at issue 

occurred in this District. 

PARTIES

6. At all times Material hereto, Plaintiff, JESUS GONZALEZ, was and is over the age of 

18 years, sui juris, and a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

1 This is a non-exclusive list of requirements imposed by 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(l). These 

requirements apply not only to the Website, but also to every online reservation system on which 

reservations can be made to stay at the Hotel, including orbitz.com, travelocity.com, hotels.com, 

and others. 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 2 of 13
3

7. Plaintiff has at all material times suffered from a “qualified disability” under the ADA. 

Plaintiff is unable to walk and uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 

8. Defendant is a Florida limited liability company conducting business in Miami Beach,

Florida, and is the owner and/or operator of the Hotel and has control over the Website. 

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

9. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA, explaining that its purpose 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 such 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).

10. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on September 15, 2010, the 

Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (“DOJ”), published revised regulations for 

Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Public accommodations, including places 

of lodging were required to conform to these revised regulations on or before March 15, 2012.

11. On March 15, 2012, the revised 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)(l) provides that: 

Reservations made by places of 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 3 of 13
4

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; 

(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. 

12. In promulgating the new requirements, the Department of Justice made clear that 

individuals with disabilities should be able to reserve hotel rooms with the same efficiency, 

immediacy, and convenience as those who do not need accessible guestrooms. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, 

Appx. A. 

13. Hotels (and motels) are required to identify and describe all accessible features in the

hotel and guestrooms; “[t]his requirement is essential to ensure individuals with disabilities receive 

information they need to benefit from the services offered by the place of lodging.” 28 C.F.R. Part 

36, Appx. A. Moreover, “a public accommodation’s designation of a guestroom as “accessible” 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 4 of 13
5

does not ensure necessarily that the room complies with all of the 1991 Standards.” 28 C.F.R. Part 

36, Appx. A. 

14. In addition, 

hotel rooms that are in full compliance with current standards may 

differ, and individuals with disabilities must be able to ascertain 

which features – in new and existing facilities – are included in the 

hotel’s accessible guest rooms. For example, under certain 

circumstances, an accessible hotel bathroom may meet accessibility 

requirements with either a bathtub or a roll in shower. The presence 

or absence of particular accessible features such as these may mean 

the difference between a room that is usable by a particular person 

with a disability and one that is not. 

28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A. Accordingly, Defendant is required to set forth specific accessible

features and not merely recite that a guestroom is “accessible” or “ADA” or list accessibility 

features that may (or may not) be offered within a particular room. 

15. For hotels in buildings constructed after the effective date of the 1991 Standards, it is 

sufficient to advise that the hotel itself is fully ADA compliant, and for each accessible guestroom, 

to specify the room type, the type of accessible bathing facility in the room, and the 

communications features in the room. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A.

16. However, for hotels in buildings constructed prior to the 1991 Standards, 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. For example, if the door to the “accessible” room 

or bathroom is narrower than required, this information should be 

included (e.g., door to guest room measures 30 inches clear). 

[emphasis added]. 

28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A. 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 5 of 13
6

17. 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 is in a building constructed prior to the 1991 

Standards. 

18. The Website (and all other online reservation platforms used by the Hotel) allow 

reservations for the Hotel to be taken online. The Defendant has control over information provided 

to the public about the Hotel through the Website and/or other online platforms. 

19. Prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff visited the Website to learn about accessible features 

of the Hotel, to independently assess whether the Hotel is accessible to him, and to see if he could 

reserve an accessible room at the Hotel online. Plaintiff undertook these actions both the review 

whether the Hotel would be suitable as a “staycation” destination, and also as a tester, in order to 

challenge unlawful barriers to access that exist in violation of the ADA and obtain remediation of 

those barriers for himself and similarly disabled individuals. Upon his visit, Plaintiff discovered 

that the Website did not provide him with any meaningful accessibility information at all or allow 

for the reservation of an accessible room. 

20. The Website homepage states nothing at all about the Hotel’s ADA compliance or 

accessibility features. A tab entitled rooms brings up four room types, not including any accessible 

room type. A review of each room type, through checkout, provides no mention of any accessible 

features, and no accessible room options. 

21. The Website also has inadequate accessibility information concerning common areas and 

hotel amenities. A page entitled the hotel lists various hotel features and information, not including 

any accessibility information. There is no indication at any point no that the Hotel common areas 

meet the 1991 Standards, or alternatively (as may be applicable): 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 6 of 13
7

a. Whether the public entrance to the Hotel complies with the 1991 Standards, and if 

not, the ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

b. Whether the registration desk at the Hotel complies with the 1991 Standards, and 

if not, the ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them;

c. Whether restaurant or other food service areas at the Hotel comply with the 1991 

Standards, and if not, the ways in which they do not comply, so that Plaintiff and 

others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them;

d. Whether any parking facilities, lots, or other parking accommodations at the Hotel 

comply with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which they do not comply, 

so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is accessible 

to them;

e. Whether the swimming pool (if any) complies with the 1991 Standards, and if not, 

the ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated 

can evaluate whether it is accessible to them;

f. Whether the business center complies with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways 

in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them;

g. Whether the meeting/ballroom areas comply with the 1991 Standards, and if not, 

the ways in which they do not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated 

can evaluate whether it is accessible to them;

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 7 of 13
8

h. Whether the route from the public entrance to the registration desk is accessible in 

compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not 

comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is 

accessible to them;

i. Whether the route from the registration desk to the accessible rooms is accessible 

in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not 

comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is 

accessible to them;

j. Whether the route from the public entrance to the business center is accessible in 

compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not 

comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is 

accessible to them;

k. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the business center is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it 

does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether 

it is accessible to them;

l. Whether the route from the public entrance to the pool (if any) is accessible in 

compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not 

comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is 

accessible to them;

m. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the pool (if any) is accessible 

in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 8 of 13
9

comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is 

accessible to them;

n. Whether the route from the public entrance to the fitness center is accessible in 

compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not 

comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is 

accessible to them;

o. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the fitness center is accessible 

in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not 

comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is 

accessible to them;

p. Whether the route from the public entrance to the restaurant or food service areas 

is accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which 

it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate 

whether it is accessible to them;

q. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the restaurant or food service 

areas is accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate 

whether it is accessible to them;

r. Whether the route from the public entrance to the conference/ballroom space is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it 

does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether 

it is accessible to them;

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 9 of 13
10

s. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the meeting/ballroom space is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which it 

does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether 

it is accessible to them;

22. This is not intended to be an exclusive list, and Plaintiff brings this action to remediate 

all violations of the ADAAG found to exist upon the Website, and upon all online reservation 

platforms used by the Hotel. 

23. In addition to the list above, upon information and belief, Defendant may not effectively 

(i) 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; (ii) 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; or (iii) 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. Discovery is required on these issues. 

24. Plaintiff will visit the Website again upon the Defendant’s compliance with the laws and 

regulations specified herein, in order learn about the accessible (and inaccessible) features of the 

Hotel, learn about the accessible (and inaccessible) features of Hotel guestrooms, assess the extent 

to which the hotels meet each of his specific accessibility needs, and determine whether he can 

reserve an accessible guestroom. 

25. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and all other mobility-impaired individuals, 

by denying full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and accommodations offered on the Websites, due to the continuing ADA and 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 10 of 13
11

ADAAG violations as set forth above. Defendant has had eight (8) years to bring the Website (and 

other online reservation platforms, as applicable) into compliance with the ADAAG revisions, but 

has failed or refused to do so. 

26. Modifying the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) to comply 

with the ADA and ADAAG is accomplishable without undue burden or expense and is readily 

achievable. But in any event, upon information and belief, the Website has been altered, updated, 

and edited, after 2010, but not in a manner compliant with 2010 ADAAG standards. 

27. Defendant will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and all other disabled 

individuals who access the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) unless 

and until Defendant modifies the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) 

to set forth all required information, as set forth above. 

28. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law and are suffering irreparable harm, and 

Plaintiff reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer this harm unless and until Defendant 

is required to correct the ADA violations found upon the Websites (and other online reservation 

platforms, as applicable), and to maintain the Websites (and other online reservation platforms, as

applicable), inclusive of the online reservation system, and accompanying policies and procedures,

in a manner that is consistent with and compliant with ADA and ADAAG requirements.

29. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188(a) this Court has authority to grant injunctive relief to 

Plaintiff, including an Order that compels Defendant to enact policies that are consistent with the 

ADA and its remedial purposes, and to alter and maintain its Website (and other online reservation 

platforms, as applicable), and all online reservation systems, in accordance with the requirements 

set forth within the 2010 Standards, 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(l).

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 11 of 13
12

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JESUS GONZALEZ, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

judgment against Defendant, and in his favor, as follows: 

a. A declaration that the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as 

applicable) is owned, leased, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant is in

violation of the ADA; 

b. Temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from continuing 

its discriminatory practices, including the requirement that Defendant permanently 

implement policies, practices, procedures, including online content, consistent with 

the mandates of the 2010 ADAAG Standards on its Website (and other online 

reservation platforms, as applicable); 

c. Temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from maintaining 

or controlling content on any website through which it is offering online 

reservations for any hotel that it owns or operates, unless such website and online 

reservation system fully comply with 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(l); 

d. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, disbursements and other expenses 

associated with this action, in favor of Plaintiff; 

e. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just, necessary and appropriate 

under the circumstances. 

DATED this 25th day of June, 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 12 of 13
13

Respectfully Submitted, 

LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

5550 Glades Road, Suite 500

Boca Raton, FL 33431

PH: (954) 745-0588

www.nklegal.com

 By: /s/ Nolan Klein

NOLAN KLEIN, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 647977

klein@nklegal.com

amy@nklegal.com

Case 1:20-cv-22639-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 13 of 13