UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SHELLEY HUTCHINSON, CASE NUMBER 20-22846-civ-MGC

Plaintiff

-vMENIN HOTELS, LLC, d/b/a JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MENIN HOSPITALITY, LLC, 

1220 MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a

BODEGA TAQUERIA Y TEQUILA, and

AIRSTREAM FOOD SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a

BODEGA TAQUERIA Y TEQUILA.

 Defendants

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Shelley Hutchinson, by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Amended 

Complaint Menin Hotels, LLC, d/b/a Menin Hospitality, LLC, 1220 Management Group, LLC, 

d/b/a Bodega Taqueria Y Tequila, and Airstream Food Services, LLC, d/b/a Bodega Taqueria Y 

Tequila, LLC, and in support thereof alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Shelley Hutchinson brings this lawsuit because she was refused admittance 

to Bodega Taqueria Y Tequila with her service animal in violation of her rights under the 

Americans With Disabilities Act and Title XLIV, Chapter 760 of the 2019 Florida Statutes. 

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Shelley Hutchinson (“Ms. Hutchinson”) resides in New York, N.Y.

3. Menin Hotels, LLC, d/b/a Menin Hospitality, LLC (“Hotel”), is a limited liability 

company organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida and maintaining offices at 3050 

Biscayne Boulevard Penthouse 1, Miami, FL 33137. 

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 1 of 17
4. 1220 Management Group, LLC, d/b/a Bodega Taqueria Y Tequila (“1220”), is a 

limited liability company or unincorporated business maintaining offices at 3050 Biscayne 

Boulevard Penthouse 1, Miami, FL 33137.

5. Airstream Food Services, LLC, d/b/a Bodega Taqueria Y Tequila (“Airstream”), is 

a limited liability company or unincorporated business maintaining offices at 3050 Biscayne 

Boulevard Penthouse 1, Miami, FL 33137.

6. Upon information and belief, 1220 is an affiliate or subsidiary of Hotel.

7. Upon information, Hotel, 1220 and Airstream are under common control.

8. Upon information and belief, Bodega Taqueria Y Tequila is owned, operated, 

controlled, and managed by Hotel.

9. Upon information and belief, Bodega Taqueria Y Tequila is owned, operated, 

controlled, and managed by 1220.

10. Upon information and belief, Bodega Taqueria Y Tequila is owned, operated, 

controlled, and managed by Airstream.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq, based upon Defendants’ 

violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

12. Venue in this Judicial District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because 

Defendants all reside within this Judicial District and a substantial part of the actions and omissions 

that gave rise to the claims herein arose in this district.

BACKGROUND FACTS

13. Plaintiff Ms. Hutchinson is a 24 year old single woman.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 2 of 17
14. Ms. Hutchinson suffers from epilepsy, a condition that causes her to suffer from 

focal seizures. 

15. Ms. Hutchinson’s seizures may be triggered and exacerbated by stress.

16. The seizures suffered by Ms. Hutchinson result in extreme and debilitating effects, 

some of which may last for weeks; following a seizure she is in intense pain, unable to speak or 

walk, suffers incapacitating migraines, and experiences uncontrollable tremors in her hands or feet, 

a loss of appetite and weight, nausea, and neuropathy.

17. Upon suffering a seizure, Ms. Hutchinson may lose consciousness or awareness of 

her surroundings, creating a danger that she may fall and injure herself or others.

18. In order to protect against injury to herself and others and to assure that she can be 

safely situated in advance of a seizure, Ms. Hutchinson travels with a registered service dog, a 

poodle named Bear.

19. Bear has been trained to alert Ms. Hutchinson approximately five minutes in 

advance of a seizure so that she can assume a safe position and avoid injury.

20. Prior to obtaining the assistance of Bear, seizures suffered by Ms. Hutchinson 

resulted in injuries, including at least one concussion.

21. On August 14, 2019, Ms. Hutchinson arrived at 1220 16th Street, Miami Beach, FL 

33139 (“Bodega”), accompanied by Bear. 

22. Upon her arrival, Ms. Hutchinson was denied entry by an individual who identified 

himself as the manager of Bodega (and who would provide only his first name as “Kelvin”).

23. Kelvin informed Ms. Hutchinson that she could not enter Bodega with Bear because 

dogs were not permitted in the restaurant.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 3 of 17
24. Upon information and belief, Kelvin was an authorized agent, employee, and/or 

representative of Hotel.

25. Upon information and belief, Kelvin was an authorized agent, employee, and/or 

representative of 1220. 

26. Upon information and belief, Kelvin was an authorized agent, employee, and/or 

representative of Airstream. 

27. Upon information and belief, Kelvin was, at all relevant times herein, acting in 

accordance with the direction of, and under the control of, Hotel.

28. Upon information and belief, Kelvin was, at all relevant times herein, acting in 

accordance with the direction of, and under the control of, 1220.

29. Upon information and belief, Kelvin was, at all relevant times herein, acting in 

accordance with the direction of, and under the control of, Airstream.

30. In response to Kelvin’s remarks, Ms. Hutchinson explained her condition and

advised Kelvin that Bear was a service dog who warned her in advance of impending seizures and 

produced Bear’s service registration certificate. (A copy of Bear’s registration certificate is 

annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”).

31. Despite the documentation provided by Ms. Hutchinson, Kelvin refused to admit 

Ms. Hutchinson and physically blocked her from entering Bodega.

32. After Ms. Hutchinson again explained her condition and Bear’s role as a service 

animal, Kelvin asked her to simulate an epileptic seizure.

33. When Ms. Hutchinson explained that she could not comply with that request, 

Kelvin laughed at her and told her that she did not actually have any disability.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 4 of 17
34. Kelvin’s request to Ms. Hutchinson and subsequent actions were cruel, 

inappropriate, abusive, and discriminatory.

35. Despite the information provided by Ms. Hutchinson, Kelvin refused to allow her 

to enter Bodega and instead subjected her to public ridicule.

36. Kelvin’s actions did not occur in a vacuum since, one day earlier, Ms. Hutchinson 

had tried to gain entry to Bodega with Bear and was told that the establishment was full and could 

not accommodate her and Bear because Bear might obstruct the path of other customers.

37. At that time Ms. Hutchinson observed that Bodega did not appear to be filled with 

customers but decided to return the following day when there might be fewer customers.

38. Given Kelvin’s conduct, it because evident to Mr. Hutchinson that she had been 

denied entry the previous day based solely upon the presence of Bear.

39. Since she was denied entry to Bodega, Ms. Hutchinson has suffered period panic 

attacks, been subjected to undue stress, which has exacerbated her seizures, and has experienced 

night terrors from fear that she will be denied entry to public venues when accompanied by her 

service dog.

40. Subsequent to her denial, Ms. Hutchinson, through counsel, contacted Bodega 

through its parent, Menin, in an attempt to remedy the discriminatory behavior. These efforts were 

rebuffed when Ms. Hutchinson’s counsel received no response and no action was taken to address 

the discrimination or signal that the discriminatory practices would cease.

41. In or about October 2020, Ms. Hutchinson’s cousin, who has been her emergency 

contact if Ms. Hutchinson needs medical attention, relocated to Miami, Florida. 

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 5 of 17
42. Ms. Hutchinson, who is now eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, has made 

an appointment to receive her first dose of the vaccine on March 31, 2021 and would receive a 

second dosage four weeks later, meaning that it would be safer for her to travel two weeks later.

43. Based upon the foregoing, Ms. Hutchinson has now made plans to travel to Miami 

on May 16, 2021, at which time she will stay at the home of her cousin for an extended period.

44. Ms. Hutchinson also has arranged to visit Bodega with her cousin on one or more 

occasions during the week of May 16, 2021, at which times she will be accompanied by Bear. 

45. Ms. Hutchinson is fearful that, upon such visits, she will again be refused entry or 

made to feel uncomfortable because of the presence of Bear.

46. In view of the foregoing, the threat of future harm to Ms. Hutchinson is real and 

immediate and not conjectural.

47. As a result of Hotels’ discriminatory actions, Ms. Hutchinson has suffered from 

increased anxiety, been subjected to undue stress, which has exacerbated her seizures, and has 

experienced a sense of helplessness and sleeplessness.

48. As a result of 1200s’ discriminatory actions, Ms. Hutchinson has suffered from 

increased anxiety, been subjected to undue stress, which has exacerbated her seizures, and has 

experienced a sense of helplessness and sleeplessness.

49. As a result of Airstreams’ discriminatory actions, Ms. Hutchinson has suffered from 

increased anxiety, been subjected to undue stress, which has exacerbated her seizures, and has 

experienced a sense of helplessness and sleeplessness.

50. As a result of the stress created by Hotel’s actions, Ms. Hutchinson has been 

prescribed additional anxiety medications.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 6 of 17
51. As a result of the stress created by 1220’s actions, Ms. Hutchinson has been 

prescribed additional anxiety medications.

52. As a result of the stress created by Airstream’s actions, Ms. Hutchinson has been 

prescribed additional anxiety medications.

53. Ms. Hutchinson has suffered damage, including emotional distress, from Kelvin 

and Hotel’s actions. 

54. Ms. Hutchinson has suffered damage, including emotional distress, from Kelvin 

and 1220’s actions. 

55. Ms. Hutchinson has suffered damage, including emotional distress, from Kelvin 

and Airstream’s actions. 

56. Upon information and belief, Hotel is responsible for the direction, operation and 

control of 1220 and Airstream. 

57. Upon information and belief, 1220 is responsible for the direction, operation and 

control of Hotel and Airstream. 

58. Upon information and belief, Airstream is responsible for the direction, operation,

and control of Hotel and 1220. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AGAINST HOTEL

59. Ms. Hutchinson re-alleges paragraphs 1-58 as if the same had been fully set forth 

herein.

60. Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

disability by public accommodations and places of public accommodation.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 7 of 17
61. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability “in the full 

and equal enjoyment of goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations of 

any place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

62. Under the ADA, a restaurant is a place of public accommodation (42 U.S.C. §

12186 et seq, § 36.104).

63. Bodega is a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA.

64. Epilepsy is a covered disability under the ADA.

65. Ms. Hutchinson has a disability as defined by the ADA.

66. Pursuant to the ADA, no individual may be denied the full and equal enjoyment of 

the facilities, goods, or services of a public accommodation.

67. Under the ADA, a place of public accommodation, including a restaurant, must 

allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where the public is allowed 

to go.

68. Under the ADA, a restaurant must permit a service animal to accompany an 

individual, even if local health laws otherwise prohibit animals from the facility. 

69. Under the ADA, service animals include dogs who are trained to alert and protect 

a person who is having, or about to have, a seizure.

70. As described herein, Bear is a certified service dog and is trained to alert Ms. 

Hutchinson to, and protect her against, seizures.

71. By denying Ms. Hutchinson entry to the facility with Bear, Hotel discriminated 

against Ms. Hutchinson on behalf of her disability and excluded her from the benefits of the 

restaurant solely on the basis of her disability.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 8 of 17
72. Accordingly, Ms. Hutchinson is entitled to an injunction preventing Hotel from 

further discrimination, as well as an award of statutory attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 12188 and 42 U.S.C. § 200A-3(b).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AGAINST 1220

73. Ms. Hutchinson re-alleges paragraphs 1-72 as if the same had been fully set forth 

herein.

74. Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

disability by public accommodations and places of public accommodation.

75. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability “in the full 

and equal enjoyment of goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations of 

any place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 

76. Under the ADA, a restaurant is a place of public accommodation (42 U.S.C. § 

12186 et seq, § 36.104).

77. Bodega is a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA.

78. Epilepsy is a covered disability under the ADA.

79. Ms. Hutchinson has a disability as defined by the ADA.

80. Pursuant to the ADA, no individual may be denied the full and equal enjoyment of 

the facilities, goods, or services of a public accommodation.

81. Under the ADA, a place of public accommodation, including a restaurant, must 

allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where the public is allowed 

to go.

82. Under the ADA, a restaurant must permit a service animal to accompany an 

individual, even if local health laws otherwise prohibit animals from the facility. 

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 9 of 17
83. Under the ADA, service animals include dogs who are trained to alert and protect 

a person who is having, or about to have, a seizure.

84. As described herein, Bear is a certified service dog and is trained to alert Ms. 

Hutchinson to, and protect her against, seizures.

85. By denying Ms. Hutchinson entry to the facility with Bear, 1220 discriminated 

against Ms. Hutchinson on behalf of her disability and excluded her from the benefits of the 

restaurant solely on the basis of her disability.

86. Accordingly, Ms. Hutchinson is entitled to an injunction preventing Hotel from 

further discrimination, as well as an award of statutory attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12188 and 42 U.S.C. § 200A-3(b).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AGAINST 

AIRSTREAM

87. Ms. Hutchinson re-alleges paragraphs 1-86 as if the same had been fully set forth 

herein.

88. Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

disability by public accommodations and places of public accommodation.

89. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability “in the full 

and equal enjoyment of goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations of 

any place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 

90. Under the ADA, a restaurant is a place of public accommodation (42 U.S.C. § 

12186 et seq, § 36.104).

91. Bodega is a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA.

92. Epilepsy is a covered disability under the ADA.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 10 of 17
93. Ms. Hutchinson has a disability as defined by the ADA.

94. Pursuant to the ADA, no individual may be denied the full and equal enjoyment of 

the facilities, goods, or services of a public accommodation.

95. Under the ADA, a place of public accommodation, including a restaurant, must 

allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where the public is allowed 

to go.

96. Under the ADA, a restaurant must permit a service animal to accompany an 

individual, even if local health laws otherwise prohibit animals from the facility. 

97. Under the ADA, service animals include dogs who are trained to alert and protect 

a person who is having, or about to have, a seizure.

98. As described herein, Bear is a certified service dog and is trained to alert Ms. 

Hutchinson to, and protect her against, seizures.

99. By denying Ms. Hutchinson entry to the facility with Bear, Airstream discriminated 

against Ms. Hutchinson on behalf of her disability and excluded her from the benefits of the 

restaurant solely on the basis of her disability.

100. Accordingly, Ms. Hutchinson is entitled to an injunction preventing Hotel from 

further discrimination, as well as an award of statutory attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12188 and 42 U.S.C. § 200A-3(b).

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST HOTEL

101. Ms. Hutchinson re-alleges paragraphs 1-100 as if the same had been fully set forth 

herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 11 of 17
102. Hotel, by its agent, Kelvin, willfully and wantonly, and with full knowledge and 

intent, harmed Ms. Hutchinson by its extreme and outrageous conduct, as set forth above.

103. Kelvin’s conduct was beyond all bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a 

civilized community.

104. Hotel had full knowledge and was aware, or should have been aware, of the extreme and 

outrageous conduct set forth in this Complaint and knowingly condoned, permitted or otherwise 

authorized or ratified such conduct.

105. Hotel engaged in the aforementioned extreme and outrageous conduct recklessly. 

106. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned extreme and outrageous conduct 

and discrimination, Ms. Hutchinson suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional distress and 

mental trauma, including the indignation of being denied, publicly, access to Bodega; the denial of full and 

equal access to Bodega; severe mental anguish, frustration, anxiety, and stress.

107. Hotel committed the aforesaid acts with conscious disregard for Ms. Hutchinson’s right

to be free from discrimination on the basis of her disability and her right to enjoy the services and facilities 

of Bodega.

108. Hotel committed the aforesaid acts recklessly and with disregard for Ms. Hutchinson’s 

right to be free from discrimination on the basis of her disability and her right to enjoy the services and 

facilities of Bodega.

109. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for such infliction of emotional harm, including 

compensatory damages to be determined by the finder of facts and punitive damages.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST 1220

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 12 of 17
110. Ms. Hutchinson re-alleges paragraphs 1-109as if the same had been fully set forth 

herein.

111. 1220, by its agent, Kelvin, willfully and wantonly, and with full knowledge and 

intent, harmed Ms. Hutchinson by its extreme and outrageous conduct, as set forth above.

112. 1220 had full knowledge and was aware, or should have been aware, of the extreme 

and outrageous conduct set forth in this Complaint and knowingly condoned, permitted or 

otherwise authorized or ratified such conduct.

113. 1220 engaged in the aforementioned extreme and outrageous conduct recklessly. 

114. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned extreme and outrageous 

conduct and discrimination, Ms. Hutchinson suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional 

distress and mental trauma, including the indignation of being denied, publicly, access to Bodega; 

the denial of full and equal access to Bodega; severe mental anguish, frustration, anxiety, and 

stress.

115. 1220 committed the aforesaid acts with conscious disregard for Ms. Hutchinson’s 

right to be free from discrimination on the basis of her disability and her right to enjoy the services 

and facilities of Bodega.

116. 1220 committed the aforesaid acts recklessly and with disregard for Ms. 

Hutchinson’s right to be free from discrimination on the basis of her disability and her right to 

enjoy the services and facilities of Bodega.

117. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for such infliction of emotional harm, 

including compensatory damages to be determined by the finder of facts and punitive damages.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST AIRSTREAM

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 13 of 17
118. Ms. Hutchinson re-alleges paragraphs 1- 117 as if the same had been fully set forth 

herein.

119. Airstream, by its agent, Kelvin, willfully and wantonly, and with full knowledge 

and intent, harmed Ms. Hutchinson by its extreme and outrageous conduct, as set forth above.

120. Airstream had full knowledge and was aware, or should have been aware, of the 

extreme and outrageous conduct set forth in this Complaint and knowingly condoned, permitted 

or otherwise authorized or ratified such conduct.

121. Airstream engaged in the aforementioned extreme and outrageous conduct 

recklessly. 

122. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned extreme and outrageous 

conduct and discrimination, Ms. Hutchinson suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional 

distress and mental trauma, including the indignation of being denied, publicly, access to Bodega; 

the denial of full and equal access to Bodega; severe mental anguish, frustration, anxiety, and 

stress.

123. Airstream committed the aforesaid acts with conscious disregard for Ms. 

Hutchinson’s right to be free from discrimination on the basis of her disability and her right to 

enjoy the services and facilities of Bodega.

124. Airstream committed the aforesaid acts recklessly and with disregard for Ms. 

Hutchinson’s right to be free from discrimination on the basis of her disability and her right to 

enjoy the services and facilities of Bodega.

125. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for such infliction of emotional harm, 

including compensatory damages to be determined by the finder of facts and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment.

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 14 of 17
(i) on the First Cause of Action, an injunction preventing further 

discrimination, together with statutory attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and 

42 U.S.C. § 200A-3(b);

(ii) on the Second Cause of Action, an injunction preventing further 

discrimination, together with statutory attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and 

42 U.S.C. § 200A-3(b);

(iii) on the Third Cause of Action, an injunction preventing further 

discrimination, together with statutory attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and 

42 U.S.C. § 200A-3(b);

(iv)

(v) on the Fourth Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be 

determined by the finder of facts and; punitive damages; interest; costs and attorneys’ fees; and such 

additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper;

(viii) on the Fifth Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be 

determined by the finder of facts and; punitive damages; interest; costs and attorneys’ fees; and such 

additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper;

(ix) on the Sixth Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be 

determined by the finder of facts and; punitive damages; interest; costs and attorneys’ fees; and such 

additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues.

Dated: February 15, 2021

By: /s/ Michael D. Redondo, Esq.

MICHAEL D. REDONDO, ESQUIRE

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 15 of 17
Florida Bar No. 86550

REDONDO LAW P.A.

2828 Coral Way, Suite 201

Miami, Florida 33145

Telephone: (305) 908-6778

Facsimile: (305) 831-7029

Primary e-mail: mike@redondolawfirm.com

Secondary e-mail: service@redondolawfirm.com

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Hartley T. Bernstein, Esq.

BERNSTEIN CHERNEY LLP

767 Third Avenue, 30th Floor

New York, New York 10017

Telephone: (212) 381-9684

Primary e-mail: hbernstein@bernsteincherney.com

Admitted Pro Hac Vic

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 16 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ____ day of February 2021, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF and that a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing was served via CM/ECF, or as otherwise indicated on the service list, on all 

counsel or parties of record on the attached service list. 

By: /s/ Michael D. Redondo, Esq.

MICHAEL D. REDONDO, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 86550

SERVICE LIST

Jonathan Smulevich, Esq. 

LOWY AND COOK, P.A. 

169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 700 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 371-5585

E-mail: jonathan@lowypa.com

E-mail: leah@lowypa.com

E-mail: assistant@lowypa.com

Attorney for Defendants

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2021 Page 17 of 17