UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. _______________

MAGDALENA FRENCH,

Plaintiff,

v. 

PLYMOUTH AT CENTURY 

VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM #IV 

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendant.

/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, MAGDALENA FRENCH (“Plaintiff”), by and through her undersigned 

counsel, hereby sues Defendant, PLYMOUTH AT CENTURY VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM 

#IV ASSOCIATION, INC. (“Defendant”), for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff, a ninety-eight (98) year old woman who is wheelchair-bound, is the owner 

of the property located at 13800 SW 5 Court, #201M, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33027-7423 (the 

“Unit”), which is located in Building M of the Plymouth at Century Village #IV Condominium (the 

“Condominium”). In the midst of a global pandemic, Defendant, which is the condominium 

association for the Condominium, has elected to repair the only elevator in the building where the 

Unit is located and has refused Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation to ensure her safe access to the 

Unit. The repairs to the elevator commenced and/or were scheduled to commence on June 1, 2020.

2. Prior to filing this action, and because relocation of Plaintiff’s residence during the 

planned elevator repairs is not feasible because of the risks presented by the Covid-19 pandemic, 

Case 0:20-cv-61109-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 1 of 8
Plaintiff requested that Defendant pay for airfare so that she and her live-in nurse can travel to New 

Jersey to stay with her son while the elevator is repaired. Defendant refused the very reasonable 

request for accommodation by Plaintiff, a disabled person, and offered only that the elevators will be 

operational from 8 am through 11 am on Monday and Thursday of the week of June 1, 2020 and 

from 8 am through 11 am on Tuesdays and Thursdays beginning the week of June 8, 2020 and 

continuing until such time as the elevator repairs are completed. In other words, the only 

accommodation that Defendant offered Plaintiff, a disabled person, was to make the elevator 

available for 6 hours per week. While such an accommodation may be feasible for purposes of 

running errands and attending doctor’s visits, it raises a life-safety issue should Plaintiff have a 

medical or other emergency at a time when the elevator is not operational.

3. To further exacerbate matters, Defendant did not even make the unreasonable 

accommodation it offered available to Plaintiff. On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff was scheduled to fly to 

New Jersey, at her own expense, to avoid being trapped in the Unit for the time being. The morning 

of her flight, when Plaintiff tried to access the elevator between the 8 am through 11 am timeframe

offered by Defendant, the elevator was not available for her use. As a result, Plaintiff missed her 

flight to New Jersey and is effectively trapped in the Unit until such time as the elevator repairs are 

completed at some point in the indefinite future.

4. Pursuant to the Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988, Defendant is required to 

provide accommodations for Plaintiff, a disabled person, so that she may use and occupy her Unit

while the building’s elevators undergo renovations. As a result of the elevator renovations 

contemplated by Defendant, Plaintiff will not have access to the elevators for over a month, and, 

therefore, will either be locked in the Unit for all but 6 hours per week, including if a medical 

emergency arises, or be forced out of the Unit. Plaintiff presented accommodation requests to 

Case 0:20-cv-61109-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 2 of 8
Defendant, but Defendant refused and failed to provide any reasonable accommodations for her 

during these times. As a result, Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her 

disability and violated the Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE 

5. This is a Complaint seeking relief under the Fair Housing Amendment Act of 

1988 and this Court has jurisdiction because the claim is based (at least in part) on a federal 

question. 

6. Plaintiff, at all relevant times, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

7. Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Florida, with its principal

place of business in Broward County, Florida.

8. This Court is vested with jurisdiction over the Defendant because the Defendant 

conducts substantial business within the State of Florida and is organized under the laws of 

Florida.

9. Venue of this action is proper in this jurisdiction because Defendant’s principal 

place of business is in and the alleged causes of action accrued in Broward County, Florida. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Plaintiff is a 98 year old wheelchair-bound woman who owns and occupies the 

Unit.

11. The Condominium, specifically including the Condominium’s common areas, is 

operated by Defendant as the Condominium’s association under Chapter 718 of the Florida 

Statutes.

12. On or about May 11, 2020, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendant notifying

that a re-modernization project of the elevator in the building where the Unit is located would 

Case 0:20-cv-61109-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 3 of 8
begin on June 1, 2020. The notice, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, stated that the “elevator 

will be shut down for approximately 4-5 weeks. During this time, the elevator cannot be used at 

all.” Further, the notice cautioned the occupants of the Condominium from contacting 

Defendant’s office for accommodations.

13. Bound to a wheel-chair, Plaintiff would be prohibited from leaving the Unit, 

which is located on a second floor, if she is unable to access the elevator in her building.

14. Upon receiving the notice, Plaintiff (through her undersigned counsel) requested 

that Defendant make accommodations so that she is able to access her home while the elevators 

undergo renovations. Taking into consideration these unprecedented times in which Plaintiff’s 

compromised health presents a significant risk should she contract the Covid-19 virus, Plaintiff 

initially requested that the elevator project be postponed to a later time. Allowing for this 

postponement would have given Plaintiff sufficient time to find and propose alternative 

accommodations that do not place her health and life in peril.

15. Defendant refused to postpone the renovations of the elevator in the 

Condominium.

16. Plaintiff then proposed that her and her live-in nurse go stay with her son in New 

Jersey and that Defendant merely pay for first class1 air travel to and from New Jersey for herself 

and her nurse.

17. Again, Defendant refused to provide the requested accommodations and 

professed no obligation to provide any accommodations.

18. Instead, Defendant offered to provide elevator access for only 6 hours per week.

1 Plaintiff requested first class air travel because such arrangements would (i) ensure adequate 

social distancing during a multi-hour flight; and (ii) would not be cost-prohibitive in the current 

environment where airfare is relatively inexpensive. 

Case 0:20-cv-61109-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 4 of 8
19. Defendant’s refusal to provide an accommodation for Plaintiff would essentially 

lock Plaintiff in the Unit for up to six weeks. Defendant’s refusal to accommodate Plaintiff’s

needs would limit her ability to visit doctors, go grocery shopping, or do anything other than 

remain in the Unit. Most glaringly, Defendant’s counter-proposal providing for elevator access 

for 6 hours per week is unworkable, in the event of an emergency such as a fire or a medical 

emergency that would require Plaintiff to leave the Unit.

20. Because of Defendant’s refusal to accommodate Plaintiff, as required by the 

Fair Housing Amendment Act, Plaintiff has been left no alternative but to retain the undersigned 

counsel to prosecute this action and request injunctive relief. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the 

undersigned reasonable attorneys’ fees for their services.

21. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have occurred, been 

performed or otherwise been waived.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENT ACT OF 1988

22. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of Paragraph 1 through 21 above as is set forth 

fully herein. 

23. This is an action for violation of the Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988, as

set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (the “FHAA”), stemming from Defendant’s refusal to make 

reasonable accommodations when such accommodations are necessary to afford Plaintiff an 

equal opportunity to use and enjoy the Unit and the Condominium. 

24. The FHAA makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations to 

rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford 

persons with disabilities an opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Case 0:20-cv-61109-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 5 of 8
25. Discrimination under the FHAA includes a “refusal to make reasonable 

accommodations in. .. services when such accommodation may be necessary to afford such 

person equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling..” 42 U.S.C. §3604(3)(B) (2018).

26. Plaintiff requested that the building postpone the elevator repairs until a later 

time, so as to allow for her to make any necessary accommodations without having to put her 

health or life at risk during a global pandemic. When denied such a basic accommodation, 

Plaintiff requested that her and her live-in nurse be flown to New Jersey so that she may stay 

with her son as the elevator repairs were underway. Defendant also denied the latter request.

Instead, Defendant advanced the unreasonable and reckless accommodation of providing 

Plaintiff elevator access for only 6 hours per week. Such an accommodation, however, presents a 

host of life safety issues, including limiting Plaintiff’s ability to exit the Condominium should a 

medical emergency arise.

27. Defendant’s refusal to make any reasonable accommodations so as to ensure that 

Plaintiff can freely access the Unit and/or does not have her life and health imperiled, is in direct 

violation of the Fair Housing Amendment Act, which requires Defendant to make 

accommodations for those with disabilities.

28. Because of Defendant’s refusal, Plaintiff, a disabled person, will not be able to 

occupy or benefit from the Unit without placing her life in significant danger.

29. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and would suffer irreparable harm 

should Defendant not be enjoined from continuing the elevator repairs at the Condominium.

30. Accordingly, and as set forth in 42 U.S.C. §3613, Plaintiff is entitled to actual 

and punitive damages, as well as permanent or temporary injunctive relief or a temporary 

Case 0:20-cv-61109-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 6 of 8
restraining order enjoining Defendant from any further discriminatory practices and/or ordering 

Defendant to make a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court enter judgment in her favor

and against Defendant, finding that Defendant has violated 42 U.S.C. §3604(3)(B) of the Fair 

Housing Amendment Act of 1988 by discriminating against Plaintiff in refusing to provide 

reasonable accommodations during the time that the elevators are undergoing renovations, 

enjoining Defendant from continuing with the elevator repairs in the Condominium until such 

time as a reasonable accommodation can be made for Plaintiff to access the Unit or otherwise not 

be placed in peril, awarding Plaintiff the costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided 

for under 42 U.S.C §3613(c)(2), and granting such other relief as the Court deems just and 

proper under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated on this 4th day of June 2020. 

Case 0:20-cv-61109-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 7 of 8
Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Luis A. Cordero

Luis A. Cordero

Florida Bar No.: 856400

lcordero@corderoassociates.com

Cordero & Associates, P.A.

Counsel for Plaintiff

200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 4650

Miami, FL 33131

T: (305) 777-2677

F: (305) 777-2670

By: s/ Eduardo F. Rodriguez

Eduardo F. Rodriguez

Florida Bar No. 036423

EFR LAW FIRM

Counsel for Plaintiff

1 Alhambra Plaza, Ste. 1225

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Office: (305) 340-0034

Mobile: (305) 978-9340

eddie@efrlawfirm.com

Case 0:20-cv-61109-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 8 of 8