UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

CARLOS BRITO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAM C. OLINICK, as Trustee,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues ADAM C. OLINICK as Trustee

(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.

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, CARLOS BRITO, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

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

5. At all times material, Defendant, ADAM C. OLINICK, as Trustee, owned and 

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 1 of 18
2

operated a commercial shopping center 911 SW 87 Avenue, Miami, Florida (hereinafter the 

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

accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

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

Commercial Property is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendant regularly conduct 

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.

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 facilities 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 businesses 

and properties.

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, CARLOS BRITO, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is, among other things, a paraplegic (paralyzed 

from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to 

his impairment, including, but not limited to, not being able to walk or stand. Plaintiff requires the 

use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 2 of 18
3

11. Defendant, ADAM C. OLINICK as Trustee, owns, operates and oversees the 

Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. 

12. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Miami, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

13. 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 May 28, 2019 and May 8, 2020,

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

the Commercial Property and businesseslocated 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 nine (9) 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 within the Commercial 

Property within two (2) months of the filing of this Complaint. 

14. 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 

Defendant’s 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. 

15. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the businesses located within

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 3 of 18
4

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.

16. 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 Defendant’s 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 

risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, and others 

similarly situated.

17. Defendant, ADAM C. OLINICK as Trustee, 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, ADAM C. OLINICK as Trustee is responsible for complying 

with the obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation that Defendant, ADAM C. 

OLINICK as Trustee, owns and operates the Commercial Property Business located 911 SW 87 

Avenue, Miami, Florida.

18. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, 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 and the businesses located within the Commercial Property,

including but not necessarily limited to the allegations in Count I of this Complaint. Plaintiff has

reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the 

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 4 of 18
5

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.

19. Defendant, ADAM C. OLINICK, as landlord and owner of the Commercial

Property Business, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in Count I of this Complaint, and 

has previously been sued in regards to this property’s ADA violations, which are largely the same 

ADA violations claimed below in paragraph 23.

20. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, 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 and businesses located within the Commercial Property, but not 

necessarily limited to the allegations in Count I 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. 

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 5 of 18
6

21. 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 Commercial Property, and businesses located within the 

Commercial Property, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

COUNT I – ADA VIOLATIONS

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

through 22 above as though fully set forth herein.

23. Defendant, ADAM C. OLINICK as Trustee, 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 Commercial Property, 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 6 of 18
7

iii. The Plaintiff had difficulty accessing the facility, as there are designated accessible parking 

spaces located too far from an accessible route to the facility. Violation: Some of the accessible 

parking spaces are not located on the shortest route to an accessible entrance, violating Section 

4.6.2 of the ADAAG and Section 208.3.1 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 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.

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.

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 7 of 18
8

iv. There are protruding objects on the path of travel at the facility that present a hazard of 

colliding with them, violating Section 4.4.2 of ADAAG and Section 307.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. 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.

vi. The Plaintiff could not reach the upper level of the facility due to the lack of an elevator. 

Violation: There is no accessible path of travel with access or egress into the building for 

people in wheelchairs, violating Section 4.3.2(2) of the ADAAG and Section 206.2.2 of the 

2010 ADA Standards.

vii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using some of the curb ramps, as the slope of the adjoining road 

surface has a slope in excess of 5%. Violation: There are curb ramps at the facility that contain 

excessive slopes at adjacent road surfaces violating Section 4.7.2 of the ADAAG and Sections 

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

viii. 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.

C. Public Restrooms

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

mounted at the required location and the side grab bar is missing. Violation: The grab bars in 

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 8 of 18
9

the accessible toilet compartment do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Section 

4.17.6 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.5 and 609 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

ii. 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 in the accessible toilet 

compartment is mounted at a non-compliant distance from the wall in violation of Section 

4.17.3 and Figure 30(a) of the ADAAG and Section 604.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff could not use the accessible toilet compartment door without assistance, as it is 

not self-closing and does not have compliant door hardware. Violation: The accessible toilet 

compartment door does not provide hardware and features that comply with Sections 4.17.5 & 

4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the accessible toilet compartment without assistance, as the required 

clear floor space was not provided due to the door swinging into the area. Violation: Compliant 

clear floor space is not provided in the accessible toilet compartment, violating Sections 4.2.3, 

4.22.2, & 4.22.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 304.4 & 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the urinals, as the rims are mounted too high. Violation: There 

are urinals provided for public use that do not comply with the standards set forth in Section 

4.18.2 of the ADAAG and Section 605.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 9 of 18
10

vi. The Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatories outside the 

accessible toilet compartment have pipes that are not fully wrapped. Violation: The lavatory 

pipes are not fully wrapped or maintained outside the accessible toilet compartment violating 

Section 4.19.4 of the ADAAG and Sections 213.3.4 & 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

vii. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatories outside the accessible toilet compartment without 

assistance, as they are mounted too high. Violation: There are lavatories outside accessible 

toilet compartments in public restrooms with the counter surfaces mounted too high, violating 

the requirements in Section 4.19.2 and Figure 31 of the ADAAG and Sections 213.3.4 & 606.3 

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

viii. 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.

ix. The Plaintiff could not use the paper towel and soap dispensers without assistance, as they are 

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.

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 10 of 18
11

xi. 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.

xii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the doorknob on the restroom door without assistance, as it 

requires tight grasping. Violation: The restroom door has non-compliant 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.

xiii. 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.

xiv. 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.

Bean Shop

D. Public Restrooms

i. The Plaintiff could not enter 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 11 of 18
12

ii. 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.

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

assistance, as it requires tight grasping. Violation: The restroom door has non-compliant 

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.

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

and the side grab bar is not the required length or at the required location. Violation: The grab 

bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Section 4.16.4 & Figure 29 of the 

ADAAG and Section 604.5 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 use the toilet without assistance as the seat is mounted too low. 

Violation: The water closet seats are mounted at a non-compliant height from the floor in 

violation of Section 4.16.3 of the ADAAG and Section 604.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

vii. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatory without assistance, as the required knee & toe 

clearances are not provided. Violation: There are lavatories in public restrooms without the 

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 12 of 18
13

required clearances provided, violating the requirements in Section 4.19.2 and Figure 31 of the 

ADAAG and Sections 306 and 606.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

viii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the paper towels 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.

ix. The Plaintiff could not use the restroom without assistance, as the required clear floor space is 

not provided. Violation: Compliant clear floor space is not provided in the restroom, violating 

Sections 4.2.3 & 4.22.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 304.3 and 603.2.1 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Casa Kni Restaurant

E. 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 utilize the bar counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: There are 

bar counters that are not at the prescribed height, violating Section 4.32.4 and 5.2 of the 

ADAAG and Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

F. Public Restrooms

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 13 of 18
14

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 use the accessible toilet compartment door without assistance, as it is 

not self-closing and does not have compliant door hardware. Violation: The accessible toilet 

compartment door does not provide hardware and features that comply with Sections 4.17.5 & 

4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff could not use the toilet compartment without assistance, as one of the required 

size is not provided: Violation: The toilet compartments provided for public use at the facility 

are in violation of Section 4.17.3 and Figure 30(a) of the ADAAG and Section 604.8.1 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatory outside the accessible toilet compartment without 

assistance, as the required knee and toe clearance is not provided. Violation: There are 

lavatories outside the accessible toilet compartment that don’t provide the required clearances 

violating Section 4.19.2 & Figure 31 of the ADAAG and Sections 213.3.4 & 606.5 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. The Plaintiff could not enter the accessible toilet compartment without assistance, as the door 

width is too narrow. Violation: The clear width at accessible toilet compartment door is less 

than the prescribed minimums violating Section 4.13.5 & 4.17.5 of the ADAAG and Sections 

404.2.3 & 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 14 of 18
15

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

Violation: The grab bars in the accessible toilet compartment do not comply with the 

requirements prescribed in Section 4.17.6 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.5.2 and 609 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

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

clearance is not provided. Violation: The restroom area 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

24. The discriminatory violations described in Count I are not an exclusive list of the 

Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendant’s 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, CARLOS BRITO, from further ingress, use, and equal enjoyment of 

the Commercial Business and businesses located within the Commercial Property; 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.

25. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 15 of 18
16

privileges, benefits, programs and activities offered by Defendant, Defendant’s buildings, 

businesses and facilities; and has 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 16 of 18
17

U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

28. 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 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 noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

29. 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.

30. 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 Defendant operate its

businesses, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 911 SW 87 Avenue, 

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 such 

time as the Defendant cure the violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendant 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. § 

Case 1:20-cv-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 17 of 18
18

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: June 16, 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-22484-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 18 of 18