1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

HELEN SWARTZ, Individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SETAI HOTEL ACQUISITION, LLC,

a Delaware Limited Liability Company, 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.

COMPLAINT

(Injunctive Relief Demanded)

Plaintiff, HELEN SWARTZ, Individually, on her behalf and on behalf of all other 

mobility impaired individuals similarly situated, (sometimes referred to as “Plaintiff”), hereby 

sues the Defendant, SETAI HOTEL ACQUISITION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company (sometimes referred to as “Defendant”), for Injunctive Relief, and attorney’s fees, 

litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (“ADA”).

COUNT I

1. Plaintiff, Helen Swartz, is an individual residing in Miami Beach, FL, in the 

County of Miami-Dade.

2. Defendant’s property, The Setai Hotel, is located at 2001 Collins Avenue, Miami 

Beach, FL, 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 the 

Defendant does business within this judicial district. 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 1 of 14
2

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. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the State Law Claims, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. 1367. 

5. Plaintiff Helen Swartz is a Florida resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an 

individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Helen Swartz suffers from multiple 

sclerosis. She was diagnosed twenty years ago and as a result of losing her ability to ambulate, 

she uses a mobility scooter. Family and friends often visit her in the Miami area and she enjoys 

visiting with them at the various hotels in which they stay. Ms. Swartz sometimes stays in hotels 

with them to eliminate the need to return home late, as fatigue is a significant component of the 

disease. She and her husband also enjoy celebrating special events such as birthdays and 

anniversaries by enjoying hotel restaurants and spending the night to use spa amenities. Ms. 

Swartz’s granddaughter enjoys using the hotel pools when visiting Miami and Ms. Swartz enjoys 

treating her granddaughter to overnight stays in hotels in Miami.

6. Helen Swartz visited the property which forms the basis of this lawsuit from July 

11 through July 12, 2020. She enjoys the Setai because it is conveniently located near shopping 

at Lincoln Road and Bal Harbour Shops. Ms. Swartz attempted to make reservations to return 

to the property from April 11 through April 12, 2021, but was informed that a deposit of $969.00 

was necessary to hold a room. Due to the high cost of reserving a room, she will reserve at a 

later time in the hope that the room rate is not as high. She invited her youngest daughter to join 

her at the Setai to celebrate her birthday on April 11 and April 12, 2021, and intends to keep that 

commitment, but is waiting until a later date to reserve a room in the hopes that the room rate 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 2 of 14
3

will be less expensive. Ms. Swartz also wishes to return to the hotel to avail herself of the goods 

and services available at the property, and to assure herself that this property is in compliance 

with the ADA so that she and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the 

property without fear of discrimination.

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 36.104. 

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

accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, leases or leases to is known as The Setai 

Hotel, and is located at 2001 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL.

8. Helen Swartz has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of 

discrimination from the Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this property 

as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations in paragraph 12 of this Complaint. 

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

discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. Helen Swartz desires to visit The 

Setai Hotel, not only to avail herself of the goods and services available at the property, but to 

assure herself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that she and others similarly 

situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the property without fear of discrimination.

9. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying her 

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 Defendant has 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 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 3 of 14
4

$500,000 or less). A preliminary inspection of The Setai Hotel has shown that violations exist. 

These violations that Helen Swartz has personally encountered or observed, and which were 

verified by an ADA expert, include, but are not limited to: 

a. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, the 

flush control is behind the water closet in the accessible guest bathroom. This is in 

violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR

§36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the water closet.

b. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, the 

projecting object is too close to the rear grab bar by the water closet in the accessible 

guest bathroom. This is in violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to 

access the water closet.

c. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, the 

grab bars by the water closet are improperly mounted in the accessible guest bathroom. 

This is in violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 

CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the water closet.

d. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, a 

Standard Roll-In Type Shower Compartment is not provided in the accessible guest 

bathroom. This is in violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the 

shower.

e. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, a 

fixed seat is not provided in the accessible guestroom shower compartment. This is in 

violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR

§36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the shower.

f. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, the 

shower spray unit in the roll-in shower does not have an on/off control with a 

non-positive shut-off. This is in violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to 

access the facility. 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 4 of 14
5

g. In the accessible guestroom bathroom of #501, which hotel deemed an 

accessible guestroom, the hook is out of reach to a person in a wheelchair. This is in 

violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR

§36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the facility.

h. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, a 

turning space is not provided to access the HVAC. This is in violation of sections 304, 

806.2.1 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition 

made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the facility.

i. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, the 

closet rod and shelf are out of reach to a person in a wheelchair. This is in violation of 

section 811.3 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This 

condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the facility.

j. In the accessible guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible 

guestroom, the light fixtures above the bed are out of reach to a person in a 

wheelchair. This is in violation of section 308 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the 

facility.

k. In the accessible guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible 

guestroom, the light fixtures require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to 

operate. This is in violation of section 309.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the 

facility.

l. In the accessible guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible 

guestroom, the window controls require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist 

to operate. This is in violation of section 309.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the 

facility.

m. In the accessible guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible 

guestroom, access is not provided at the table. This is in violation of section 806.2.1 of 

the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it 

difficult the plaintiff to access the facility. 

n. In guestroom #501, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, items 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 5 of 14
6

in the guestroom and bathroom are out of reach to a person using a wheelchair. This is 

in violation of sections 308, 806 and 811 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 

28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to use the facilities.

o. Accessible seating is not provided in and around the hotel. This is in

violation of sections 226 and 902 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. This 

condition made it extremely difficult for the Plaintiff access the assorted bars and tables; 

28 CFR §36.202 & §36.304.

p. The lavatory in the Spa is out of reach to a person in a wheelchair. This 

is in violation of section 606.3 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. 

This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access the facility and denies the 

plaintiff the full and equal opportunity to use the lavatory in the spa. §36.202.

q. A clear floor space is not positioned for a forward approach to access 

the lavatory in the Spa. This is in violation of section 606.2 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access 

the facility and denies the plaintiff the full and equal opportunity to use the lavatory in 

the spa. §36.202.

r. An appropriate transfer type shower compartment is not provided in the 

Spa. This is in violation of sections 608.3.1, 608.4 and 608.5 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access 

the facility.

s. A wheelchair accessible toilet compartment is not provided in the Spa. 

This is in violation of sections 213.3.1 and 604.8.1 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access the facility.

t. The ambulatory accessible water closet in the Spa has inappropriate 

installed grab bars. This is in violation of section 609.4 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access 

the facility.

u. In the ambulatory accessible water closet in the Spa, the flush control is 

mounted behind the water closet. This is in violation of section 604.6 of the 2010 

Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the 

Plaintiff to access the facility.

v. Items in the Gym are out of reach to a person in a wheelchair. This is 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 6 of 14
7

in violation of section 308 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. This 

condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access items in the gym.

w. The pipe underneath the exterior lavatory in the women’s pool toilet 

room is exposed. This is in violation of section 606.5 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to 

access the facilities.

x. A clear floor space is not positioned for a forward approach to access 

the exterior lavatory in the in the women’s pool toilet room. This is in violation of 

section 606.2 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition 

made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access the facility and denies the plaintiff the full and 

equal opportunity to use the lavatory in the women’s pool toilet room. §36.202.

y. In the women’s pool toilet room, the exterior lavatory is out of reach to 

a person in a wheelchair. This is in violation of section 606.3 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access 

the facility and denies the plaintiff the full and equal opportunity to use the lavatory in 

the women’s pool toilet room. §36.202.

z. In the women’s pool toilet room, the flush control is behind the water 

closet in the wheelchair accessible toilet compartment. This is in violation of section 

604.6 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it 

difficult for the Plaintiff to access the facility.

aa. The pool shower has a fixed shower head that out of reach to a person in 

a wheelchair. This is in violation of section 608.6 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access the facility.

bb. A guest with a disability is denied the opportunity to access the beach in 

the same way as the hotel’s abled guests. This is in violation of §36.201, §36.202 and 

§36.304. This denied Plaintiff the full and equal opportunity to receive the same service 

as an abled individual. 

cc. A guest with a disability is denied the opportunity to participate in 

choosing one of the assorted sunbeds that are offered around the pool to the hotel’s 

abled guests. This is in violation of §36.201, §36.202 and §36.304. This denied Plaintiff 

the full and equal opportunity to receive the same service as an abled individual. 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 7 of 14
8

dd. A clear floor space is not positioned for a forward approach to access 

the exterior lavatory in the in the lobby toilet room. This is in violation of section 

606.2 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it 

difficult for the Plaintiff to access the facility and denies the plaintiff the full and equal 

opportunity to use the lavatory in the women’s pool toilet room. §36.202.

ee. The pipe underneath the exterior lavatory in the lobby toilet room is 

exposed. This is in violation of section 606.5 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the 

facility.

ff. In the lobby toilet room, the mirror above the exterior lavatory is too 

high. This is in violation of section 603.3 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 

28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the facility.

gg. In the lobby toilet room, the flush control is behind the water closet in 

the wheelchair accessible toilet compartment. This is in violation of section 604.6 of the

2010 Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the 

Plaintiff to access the facility.

hh. In the lobby toilet room, an ambulatory accessible water closet is not 

provided. This is in violation of sections 213.3.1 and 604.8.2 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access 

the facility.

ii. The elevator button is out of reach to a person in a wheelchair. This is 

in violation of section 407.2.1.1 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. 

This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access the 5

th floor elevator button.

jj. Appropriate designation identifying the permanent room is not provided. 

This is in violation of section 216.2 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design.

§36.304. 

kk. The hotel does not provide the required amount of compliant accessible

guest rooms, and the accessible rooms are not dispersed among the various classes of 

accommodations. This is in violation of section 224 of the 2010 Standards for

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This denies to Plaintiff the full and equal 

opportunity to stay at the subject hotel. 28 CFR §36.302(e)(1)

ll. The accessible features of the facility are not maintained, creating 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 8 of 14
9

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 

Disability Act Accessibility Guidelines, and the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design 

(ADAAG), as promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

12. The discriminatory violations described in paragraph 12 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 

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 non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

13. Defendant has discriminated against the individual by denying her 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 the Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated by failing to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 9 of 14
10

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 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 facility 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 

facility is one which was designed and constructed for first occupancy subsequent to January 26, 

1993, as defined in 28 CFR 36.401, then the Defendant’s facility 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 Defendant.

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 10 of 14
11

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

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to require the Defendant to alter The Setai Hotel to 

make those facilities readily accessible to and useable by the Plaintiff and all other persons with 

disabilities as defined by the ADA; or by closing the facility until such time as the Defendant 

cures its violations of the ADA. The Order shall further require the Defendant to maintain the 

required assessable features on an ongoing basis, and to require the institution of a policy that 

requires Defendant to maintain its accessible features.

18. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff’s counsel conducted a thorough PACER 

search to determine whether prior ADA cases had been filed in the Southern District of Florida 

against the instant property. Three unrelated ADA lawsuits had been filed, as follows:

a. Howard Cohan v. Setai Owners, LLC d/b/a The Setai Hotel, Case 

1:14-cv-21823-KMM, in which the only violations listed are elements relating to the 

hotel’s pool and the pool restroom.

b. David Poschmann v. Setai Hotel Acquisition, LLC, Case 

2:18-cv-14435-JEM, which is a lawsuit solely for violations relating to an inaccessible 

website and reservations system.

c. Juan Carlos Gil v. Setai Hotel Acquisition LLC d/b/a The Setai Miami 

Beach and www.thesetaihotel.com, Case 1:17-cv-23452-MGC, which makes allegations 

as to Defendant’s “failure to provide auxiliary aids and services for effective 

communications, by maintaining an inaccessible website and reservation system.

The three unrelated cases concern barriers to access not related to the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 11 of 14
12

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 facility; or to make such facility 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.

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.

COUNT II

Negligence

19. Plaintiff realleges all allegations heretofore set forth.

20. Defendant, through its activities and past ventures and experience, knew or 

reasonably should have known its duties to the impaired. Defendant had a duty to Plaintiff to 

remove ADA accessibility barriers, and adopt policies and procedures, as mandated by the ADA, 

so that Plaintiff, as a disabled individual would have full and equal access to the subject public 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 12 of 14
13

accommodation.

21. Defendant breached this duty.

22. Defendant is or should be aware that, historically, society has tended to isolate 

and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social

problem.

23. Discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in the use and 

enjoyment of public accommodations.

24. The Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure 

equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for 

such individuals.

25. The ADA has been the law of the land since 1991, but Defendant has negligently 

denied Plaintiff her civil rights by maintaining architectural barriers that preclude the Plaintiff 

from the full and equal use of the subject premises, and that endangered and continues to 

endanger Plaintiff’s safety. This negligent conduct of the Defendant has also caused Plaintiff 

damage by virtue of segregation, discrimination, relegation to second class citizen status and the 

pain, suffering and emotional damages inherent to discrimination and segregation and other

damages to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief, as follows:

A. For finding of negligence; and

B. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial; and

C. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 13 of 14
14

Dated: July 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lawrence A. Fuller

Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq. (FBN 0180470)

FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502

Miami Beach, FL 33181

(305) 891-5199

(305) 893-9505 - Facsimile

lfuller@fullerfuller.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Helen Swartz

Case 1:20-cv-23004-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 14 of 14