UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

DOUG LONGHINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C..;

RAW2O LLC; NORTH MARY 

BRICKELL LLC; MOE OF MIAMI INC.; 

TUCAN & BARU BRICKELL LLC; and 

P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, INC.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C.,

RAW2O LLC; NORTH MARY BRICKELL LLC; MOE OF MIAMI INC.; TUCAN & BARU 

BRICKELL LLC; and P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, INC.; (hereinafter “Defendants”), 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 1 of 22
2

4. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

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

5. At all material times, Defendant MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C.. and operated a 

commercial property at 900 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida and 901 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, 

Florida1(hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business 

in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. the Shops at Mary Brickell 

Village.”

6. At all material times Defendant MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C.. was a Foreign 

Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal 

place of business in Dallas, Texas and conducted a substantial amount of business in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

7. At all material times, Defendant RAW2O LLCowned and operated a retail business

at 900 S. Miami 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. Defendant RAW2O LLC holds itself out to the public as “Raw Juce.”

8. At all material times Defendant RAW2O LLC. was a Florida Limited Liability 

Company organized under the laws of the state of Florida, with its principal place of business in 

Boca Raton, Florida and conducted a substantial amount of business in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. 

9. At all material times, Defendant NORTH MARY BRICKELL LLC. owned and 

1 The Property includes the following addresses: 900 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida and 901 S. Miami Avenue, 

Miami, Florida. The Properties share many common elements including parking and signage in addition to common 

ownership between the two adjacent parcels. The property holds itself out to the public as “the Shops at Mary 

Brickell Village” both at the physical brick and mortar location and on its website page. 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 2 of 22
3

operated a retail restaurant business at 900 S. Miami 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. Defendant NORTH MARY BRICKELL LLC. 

holds itself out the public as “North Italia.”

10. At all material times Defendant NORTH MARY BRICKELL LLC. was a Foreign 

Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of the state of Arizona, with a principal place 

of business in Calabasas, California and conducted a substantial amount of business in MiamiDade County, Florida.

11. At all material times, Defendant MOE OF MIAMI INC. owned and operated a 

retail restaurant business at 900 S. Miami 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. Defendant MOE OF MIAMI INC. holds itself out to the public 

as “Subway.”

12. At all material times Defendant MOE OF MIAMI INC. was a Florida Profit 

Corporation organized under the laws of the state of Florida, with its principal place of business in 

Miami, Florida and conducted a substantial amount of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

13. At all material times, Defendant TUCAN & BARU BRICKELL LLC owned and 

operated a retail business at 901 S. Miami 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. Defendant TUCAN & BARU BRICKELL LLC holds itself out 

to the public “Pepito’s Plaza.”

14. At all material times Defendant TUCAN & BARU BRICKELL LLC was a Florida 

Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of the state of Florida, with its principal place 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 3 of 22
4

of business in Miami, Florida, and conducted a substantial amount of business in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

15. At all material times, Defendant and P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, INC.

owned and operated a retail business at 901 S. Miami 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. Defendant P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, 

INC. holds itself out to the public as “P.F. Chang’s China Bistro.”

16. At all material times Defendant and P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, INC. was 

a Foreign Profit Corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal 

place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona, and conducted a substantial amount of business in MiamiDade County, Florida. 

17. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because Defendants’

Commercial Property is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants 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

18. Although over twenty-eight (28) years have passed since the effective date of Title 

III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make its facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

19. 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, Defendants continue to discriminate against 

people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants’ businesses 

and properties.

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 4 of 22
5

20. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in 28 CFR 36.201 and 

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance

21. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

pursuant to the ADA. DOUG LONGHINI uses a wheelchair to ambulate. DOUG LONGHINI

has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping 

or twisting of the wrist. He also has a great deal of trouble walking or otherwise ambulating 

without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but 

not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. 

22. Defendant, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. owns, operates and oversees the 

Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. 

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

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

24. 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 June 10, 2020 and June 11, 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 twenty (20) 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 from the date of the filing of this Complaint. 

25. Plaintiff is the President of National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. and often 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 5 of 22
6

travels through South Florida to conduct outreach activities on behalf of National Alliance for 

Accessibility, Inc., to include the Downtown and Brickell area. Many members and prospective 

members have transportation difficulties which requires Plaintiff to travel to visit members and 

prospective members. 

26. 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 

Defendants’ 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. 

27. Moreover, Plaintiff is frequently in the area for mediations and other events related 

to his activities to improve accessibility for the disabled under the ADA.

28. Defendant MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. promotes the Commercial Property as 

“a popular lifestyle center” and “a world class dinning destination.” Defendant MB VILLAGE 

OWNER, L.L.C.’s commercial Property is home to a myriad of retail shopping and dining 

establishments in Miami’s urban core, attracting many patrons. 

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

30. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 6 of 22
7

barriers to access at the 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, DOUG LONGHINI, and others similarly 

situated.

31. Defendant, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C., 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, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. is responsible for complying 

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

VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. own and operate the Commercial Property Business located at 900 S. 

Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida and 901 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida.

32. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing

threat of discrimination from the Defendants’ 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 Counts I through VI of this Complaint. 

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

at the 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

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 7 of 22
8

Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination.

33. Defendant, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. as landlord and owner of the 

Commercial Property, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in this Complaint.

34. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing 

threat of discrimination from the Defendants’ 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 Counts I through VI 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. 

35. 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 Commercial Property, and businesses located within the 

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

COUNT I

(AS TO DEFENDANTS MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C.

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

through 35 above as though fully set forth herein.

37. Defendants, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. has discriminated, and continues to 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 8 of 22
9

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:

A. Parking

i. There are accessible parking spaces that are obstructed by cars from an auto dealership. 

Violation: Accessible elements are not properly maintained or readily accessible and usable by 

persons with disabilities violating 28 CFR 36.211, whose resolution is readily achievable.

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. 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.

ii. 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.

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.

iv. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 9 of 22
10

ADAAG and Sections 206.2.1, 302.1, 303, and 402.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

v. There are objects on the path of travel at the facility that protrude more than the maximum 

allowable, violating Section 4.4.1 of ADAAG and Section 307.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

C. Public Restrooms

i. The Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory outside the 

accessible toilet compartment have pipes that are not 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.

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the locking mechanism on the toilet compartment door 

without assistance, as it requires tight grasping. Violation: The toilet compartment door has 

non-compliant hardware for disabled patrons, violating Sections 4.13.9, 4.17.5, & 4.27.4 of 

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

is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not 

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory pipes are not fully wrapped or maintained violating Section 

4.19.4 of the ADAAG and Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff was unable to wash his hands in the accessible toilet compartment due to missing 

soap and paper towel dispensers. Violation: Elements in the restroom are not readily accessible 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 10 of 22
11

and usable by persons with disabilities, violating 28 CFR 36.211, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

COUNT II

(AS TO DEFENDANTS MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. AND RAW2O LLC)

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

35 above as though fully set forth herein.

39. Defendants, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. and RAW2O LLC, have

discriminated, and continue 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:

A. 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.

B. Public Restrooms

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 transfer to the toilet without assistance, as a trashcan obstructed the 

clear floor space. Violation: The required clear floor space is not provided next to the toilet, 

violating Section 4.16.2 & Figure 28 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 604.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 11 of 22
12

iii. The plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not 

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory pipes are not fully wrapped or maintained violating Section 

4.19.4 of the ADAAG and Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

COUNT III

(AS TO DEFENDANTS MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. AND NORTH MARY 

BRICKELL LLC)

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

35 above as though fully set forth herein.

41. Defendants, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. and NORTH MARY BRICKELL 

LLC, have discriminated, and continue 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:

A. Public Restrooms

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. Violation: The accessible toilet compartment door does not provide the 

features that comply with Sections 4.17.5 of the ADAAG and Section 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 12 of 22
13

iii. The Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not 

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory pipes are not fully wrapped or maintained violating Section 

4.19.4 of the ADAAG and Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatory without assistance, as it is mounted too high. Violation: 

There are lavatories in public restrooms with the counter surface mounted too high, violating 

the requirements in Section 4.19.2 and Figure 31 of the ADAAG and Section 606.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. 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.

vi. The Plaintiff could not use the coat hook without assistance, as it is mounted too high. 

Violation: There are coat hooks provided for public use in the restroom, outside the reach 

ranges prescribed in Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.25.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 308 and 

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

vii. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as objects are mounted less than 

12” above a grab bar obstructing its use. Violation: The grab bars in the accessible toilet 

compartment do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Sections 4.17.6 and 4.26 of 

the ADAAG and Section 609.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

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

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 13 of 22
14

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

resolution is readily achievable.

COUNT IV

(AS TO DEFENDANTS MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. AND MOE OF MIAMI INC.)

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

35 above as though fully set forth herein.

43. Defendants, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. and MOE OF MIAMI INC., have

discriminated, and continue 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:

A. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. There are objects on the path of travel at the facility that protrude more than the maximum 

allowable, violating Section 4.4.1 of ADAAG and Section 307.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff could not traverse through areas of the restaurant, 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 restaurant, 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.

B. Public Restrooms

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 14 of 22
15

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 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.

iii. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as a trashcan obstructed the 

clear floor space. Violation: The required clear floor space is not provided next to the toilet, 

violating Section 4.16.2 & Figure 28 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 604.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. 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.

v. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the side grab bar is not 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 604.5.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

COUNT V

(AS TO DEFENDANTS MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. AND TUCAN & BARU 

BRICKELL LLC)

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

35 above as though fully set forth herein.

45. Defendants, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. and TUCAN & BARU BRICKELL 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 15 of 22
16

LLC, have discriminated, and continue 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:

A. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. There are objects on the path of travel at the facility that protrude more than the maximum 

allowable, violating Section 4.4.1 of ADAAG and Section 307.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

B. 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.

C. Public Restrooms

i. The restroom signage is not mounted at the required location, violating Section 4.30.6 of the 

ADAAG and Section 703.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

ii. 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.

iii. The Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not 

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory pipes are not fully wrapped or maintained violating Section 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 16 of 22
17

4.19.4 of the ADAAG and Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the paper towel dispenser without assistance, as it is 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.

v. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as a trashcan obstructs the clear 

floor space. Violation: The required clear floor space is not provided next to the toilet, violating 

Section 4.16.2 & Figure 28 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 604.3 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vi. 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.

vii. 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.

viii. The Plaintiff could not use the coat hook without assistance, as it is mounted too high. 

Violation: There are coat hooks provided for public use in the restroom, outside the reach 

ranges prescribed in Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.25.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 308 and 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 17 of 22
18

COUNT VI

(AS TO DEFENDANTS MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. AND P.F. CHANG’S CHINA

BISTRO, INC.)

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

35 above as though fully set forth herein.

47. Defendants, MB VILLAGE OWNER, L.L.C. and P.F. CHANG’S CHINA 

BISTRO, INC., have discriminated, and continue 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:

A. 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.

B. Public Restrooms

i. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatory without assistance, as objects are located underneath 

it. Violation: There are lavatories in public restrooms without the required toe clearance 

provided, violating the requirements in Section 4.19.2 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 

Sections 306.2 & 606.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 18 of 22
19

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

not self-closing. Violation: The accessible toilet compartment door does not provide the 

features that comply with Sections 4.17.5 of the ADAAG and Section 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iii. 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.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the baby changing table without assistance as it is mounted too 

high. Violation: There are elements provided for public use in the restrooms, with counters 

higher than prescribed in Section 4.32.4 of the ADAAG and Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

48. The discriminatory violations described in Counts I through VI of this Complaint

are not an exclusive list of the Defendants’ ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of 

the Defendants’ 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, DOUG LONGHINI, 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 19 of 22
20

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.

49. 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 

privileges, benefits, programs and activities offered by Defendants, Defendants’ buildings, 

businesses and facilities; and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the 

Defendants because of the Defendants’ 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 Defendants’ place of public 

accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

50. Defendants have 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 Defendants continue 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.

51. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, will suffer irreparable harm, and has a 

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 20 of 22
21

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 Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

52. Defendants are 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 

Defendants’ place of public accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

53. Notice to Defendants is not required as a result of the Defendants’ 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 Defendants.

54. 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 Defendants operates its

businesses, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 900 S. Miami Avenue, 

Miami, Florida and 901 S. Miami 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 mobilityimpaired persons; or by closing the facility until such time as the Defendants cure the violations 

of the ADA.

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 21 of 22
22

WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendants 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. § 12181 et seq.; (ii) Injunctive relief against Defendants 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 Defendants

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: July 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

Case 1:20-cv-22949-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 22 of 22