UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

DOUG LONGHINI, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SERRANO IMPORT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues SERRANO IMPORT 

CORPORATION (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 and 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). 

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, I s an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

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

4. At all times material, Defendant, SERRANO IMPORT CORPORATION, was 
2

and is a Florida Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business, agents, officers and/or 

offices in Miami, Florida.

5. At all times material, Defendant, SERRANO IMPORT CORPORATION, owned 

a commercial office building located at 2121 SW 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida (the “Commercial 

Property”).

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

Commercial Property that is the subject of this Action, is located in Miami-Dade, 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 Commercial Property.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Although over twenty-eight (28) 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 Commercial 

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
3

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. 

11. Defendant, owns and operates the Commercial Property which is located in 

Miami, Florida that are the subject of this Action. The subject Commercial Property and the 

businesses located therein are open to the public, contain a myriad of different businesses that pay 

Defendants rent and are all located in Miami, Florida. 

12. The individual Plaintiff frequently visits the Commercial Property and tenant 

businesses (including the related parking lots and common areas) to include a visit on or about 

March 5, 2020, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability 

to use and enjoy the Commercial Property and businesses therein. He often visits the Commercial 

Property and businesses therein, when he is in the area visiting family and friends that reside 

nearby, and has definite plans to return to the Commercial Property within two (2) months of the 

filing of this Complaint in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public at 

the Commercial Property, if it becomes accessible. 

13. Plaintiff visited the Commercial 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 Commercial Property. Plaintiff resides near the

Commercial Property, approximately fourteen (14) miles from the Commercial Property, in the 

same state and county as the Commercial Property, regularly frequents the Defendants’

Commercial Property for its intended purposes, and intends to return to the Commercial Property

within two (2) months’ time. 
4

14. The Plaintiff found the Commercial 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 

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

Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff’s ability to visit the Commercial 

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 Commercial 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 Commercial 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 Commercial Property and businesses therein which are 

open to the public and in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial Property

not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the Commercial 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.
5

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 

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 required number of accessible parking spaces is not provided, violating Section 4.1.2(5a) 

and 4.6.1 of the ADAAG and Section 208.2.4 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 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.

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 using ramps, as they are located on an excessive slope. Violation: 

Ramps at the facility contain excessive slopes, violating Section 4.8.2 of the ADAAG and 

Section 405.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel due to abrupt changes in level. 

Violation: There are changes in levels of greater than 1⁄2 inch, violating Sections 4.3.8 and 4.5.2 

of the ADAAG and Section 303 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

Brazil Mart

A. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. The Plaintiff could not exit the store without assistance, as the required maneuvering clearance 

is not provided. Violation: The tenant entrance 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 

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.
7

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.

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.
8

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 Miami, 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. § 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 
9

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