UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DOUG LONGHINI, Individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAYNE KAPLAN TRUSTEE OF THE 

RAPHAEL BELKOV REVOCABLE TRUST 

DTD 2/5/1991 FBO JAYNE KAPLAN GST 

EXEMPT, as to an undivided 50 percent interest 

and DEBBIE BELKOV TRUSTEE OF THE 

RAPHAEL BELKOV REVOCABLE TRUST 

DTD 2/5/1991 FBO DEBBIE BELKOV GST 

EXEMPT, as to an undivided 50 percent interest,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.

COMPLAINT

(Injunctive Relief Demanded)

Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, Individually, and on behalf of all other mobility impaired 

individuals similarly situated, (sometimes referred to as “Plaintiff”), hereby sues the Defendants, 

Jayne Kaplan Trustee of the Raphael Belkov Revocable Trust DTD 2/5/1991 FBO Jayne Kaplan 

GST Exempt, as to an undivided 50 percent interest, and Debbie Belkov Trustee of The Raphael 

Belkov Revocable Trust DTD 2/5/1991 FBO Debbie Belkov GST Exempt, as to an undivided 50 

percent interest (sometimes referred to as “Defendants”), for Injunctive Relief, and attorney’s 

fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12181 et seq. (“ADA”).

1. Plaintiff, Doug Longhini, is an individual residing in Miami, Florida, in the County of 

Miami-Dade.

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

2. Defendant’s property, De Todo Plaza is located at 300 SW 109th Avenue, Miami, FL 

33174, in the County of Miami-Dade.

3. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because venue lies in the 

judicial district of the property situs. The Defendant’s property is located in and does 

business within this judicial district.

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, this Court has been given original 

jurisdiction over actions which arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2201 

and § 2202.

5. Plaintiff Doug Longhini is a Florida resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an individual 

with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Doug Longhini has cerebral palsy and requires 

the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. Mr. Longhini has very limited use of his hands and 

cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. 

6. Mr. Longhini has been to the subject property on numerous occasions. The subject 

property is approximately 6.5 miles from his home. He regularly travels to the area 

where the property is located. Mr. Longhini intends to return to the property in the near 

future and on an ongoing basis to available himself of the goods and services offered at 

the subject property. He will in the future continue to encounter architectural barriers at 

the subject property, until the barriers are corrected. The barriers to access have 

endangered his safety.

7. Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as 

defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

36.104. Defendant is responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The 

place of public accommodation that the Defendants own, operate, lease or leases to, is 

known as De Todo Plaza, and is located at 300 SW 109th Avenue, Miami, FL 33174.

8. 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 property as 

described but not necessarily limited to the allegations in paragraph 10 of this complaint. 

Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to 

discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendants. Doug Longhini desires to 

visit the De Todo Plaza, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at 

the property, but to assure himself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so 

that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the property 

without fear of discrimination.

9. The 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 buildings, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

10. The Defendants’ have discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the 

Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by 

January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross 

receipts of $500,000 or less). A preliminary inspection of the De Todo Plaza has shown 

that violations exist. These violations that Doug Longhini has personally encountered or 

observed include, but are not limited to: 

Parking

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

a) 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.

b) 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.

Entrance Access and Path of Travel

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) 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.

f) The plaintiff had difficulty on the path of travel at the facility, as ramps do not 

have compliant handrails violating Section 4.8.5 of the ADAAG and Section 

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

g) 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.

h) 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-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

i) 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.

j) The plaintiff could not traverse through areas of the facility, as the required 36” 

path is not provided. Violation: A continuous path of travel connecting all 

essential elements of the facility is not provided, violating Sections 4.2.1, 4.3.2(2), 

& 4.3.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 206.2.2 & 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

LA NUEVA NICARAGUA

Access to Goods and Services

k) 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.

ONE FOOD STOP

Entrance Access and Path of Travel

l) The plaintiff could not traverse through areas of the store, as the required 36” path 

isn’t provided due to objects that obstruct the path of travel. Violation: There isn’t 

a continuous path of travel connecting all essential elements of the store, in 

violation of Sections 4.2.1 & 4.3.3 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and Section 

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

Unisex Restrooms

m) 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 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.

n) The plaintiff had difficulty using the toilet paper & paper towels due to the rolls 

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.

o) 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 5 of 10
6

4.19.6 of the ADAAG and Section 603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

p) The plaintiff had difficulty using the doorknob and the locking mechanism on the 

restroom door without assistance, as they require 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.

q) 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.

r) 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.

s) The plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the rear grab bar 

is not the required length and both grab bars are not mounted at the required 

height. Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed 

in Section 4.16.4 & Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.5 & 609 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Maintenance

t) The accessible features of the facility are not maintained, creating barriers to 

access for the Plaintiff, as set forth herein, in violation of 28 CFR 36.211.

11. All of the foregoing violations are also violations of the 1991 Americans with Disabilities 

Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), and the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design, 

as promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice.

12. The discriminatory violations described in paragraph 10 are not an exclusive list of the 

Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requires the inspection of the Defendant’s place of 

public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts 

violating the ADA and all of the barriers to access. The individual Plaintiff, and all other 

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

individuals similarly situated, have been denied access to, and have been denied the 

benefits of services, programs and activities of the Defendant’s buildings and its 

facilities, 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 noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

13. Defendant has discriminated against the individual by denying him access to full and 

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

accommodations of their places of public accommodation or commercial facilities in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, the 

Defendant continues to discriminate against the 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.

14. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm. 

Considering the balance of hardships between the Plaintiff and Defendant, a remedy in 

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

equity is warranted. Furthermore, the public interest would not be disserved by a 

permanent injunction. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled to 

recover attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses from the Defendant pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505.

15. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically 

disabled when such removal is readily achievable for its place of public accommodation 

that have existed prior to January 26, 1993, 28 CFR 36.304(a); in the alternative, if there 

has been an alteration to Defendant’s place of public accommodation since January 26, 

1992, then the Defendant is required to ensure to the maximum extent feasible, that the 

altered portions of the facilities are readily accessible to and useable by individuals with 

disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, 28 CFR 36.402; and finally, if the 

Defendant’s facilities are ones which were designed and constructed for first occupancy 

subsequent to January 26, 1993, as defined in 28 CFR 36.401, then the Defendant’s 

facilities must be readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities as 

defined by the ADA. 

16. 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 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.

17. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant De Todo

Plaza to make those facilities readily accessible to and useable by the Plaintiff and all 

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

other persons with disabilities as defined by the ADA; or by closing the facilities until 

such time as the Defendant cures its violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

a. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the 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.

b. Injunctive relief against the 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 the 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.

c. An award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12205.

d. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including an Order compelling 

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

the Defendant to maintain the accessible features on an ongoing basis.

Dated: June 24, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ John P. Fuller 

John P. Fuller, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 276847

FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502

North Miami, FL 33181

(305) 891-5199

(305) 893-9505 - Facsimile

jpf@fullerfuller.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, Doug Longhini

Case 1:20-cv-22624-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 10 of 10