UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

CARLOS BRITO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC; 

SACHI FOOD CORP; SYLSOR, CORP.; 

HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C.; BC 210, LLC,

and CALIMAS CORP.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) 

LLC; SACHI FOOD CORP; SYLSOR, CORP.; HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C. HOLIDAY CVS, 

L.L.C., BC 210, LLC, and CALIMAS CORP (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-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 1 of 20
2

4. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

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

5. At all times material, Defendant, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC, 

owned and operated a commercial retail center 13707 SW 152nd Street., Miami, Florida

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

place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

6. At all times material, Defendant, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC, was 

a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place 

of business in Jacksonville, Florida. 

7. At all times material, Defendant, SACHI FOOD CORP, owned and operated a 

commercial restaurant at 13707 SW 152nd Street, 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 SACHI FOOD CORP holds itself out of the public as 

“Teriyaki Madness.”

8. At all times material, Defendant, SACHI FOOD CORP, was a Florida profit 

corporation organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Miami,

Florida. 

9. At all times material, Defendant, SYLSOR, CORP. owned and operated a 

commercial shopping center 13707 SW 152nd Street, 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 SYLSOR, CORP. holds itself out to 

the public as “Subway.”

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 2 of 20
3

10. At all times material, Defendant, SYLSOR, CORP., was a Florida profit 

corporation organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Miami, 

Florida. 

11. At all times material, Defendant, HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C. owned and operated a 

commercial shopping center 13707 SW 152nd Street, 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 HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C. holds itself 

out to the public as “CVS.”

12. At all times material, Defendant, HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C., was a Florida limited 

liability company organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in 

Woodsocket, Rhode Island. 

13. At all times material, Defendant, BC 210, LLC owned and operated a commercial 

shopping center 13707 SW 152nd Street, Miami, Florida (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) 

and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in MiamiDade County, Florida. Defendant BC 210, LLC holds itself out to the public as “Mooyah Burger.”

14. At all times material, Defendant, BC 210, LLC, was a Florida limited liability 

company organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. 

15. At all times material, Defendant, CALIMAS CORP, was a Florida limited 

liability company organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Miami, 

Florida. 

16. At all times material, Defendant, CALIMAS CORP owned and operated a 

commercial shopping center 13707 SW 152nd Street, Miami, Florida (hereinafter the 

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 3 of 20
4

“Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public 

accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant CALIMAS CORP holds itself out to 

the public as “Ernesto’s Taco Shop.”

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.

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, CARLOS BRITO, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is, among other things, a paraplegic (paralyzed 

from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to 

his impairment, including, but not limited to, not being able to walk or stand. Plaintiff requires the 

use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 4 of 20
5

22. Defendant, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC, 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 9, 2020, and encountered 

multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial 

Property and businesses located 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 five (5) 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 of the filing of this Complaint. 

25. 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. 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 5 of 20
6

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.

27. 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 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, CARLOS BRITO, and others 

similarly situated.

28. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC; SACHI FOOD CORP; 

SYLSOR, CORP.; HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C.; BC 210, LLC; and CALIMAS CORP., own and/or

operate a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing 

the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) 

LLC; SACHI FOOD CORP; SYLSOR, CORP.; HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C.; BC 210, LLC; and 

CALIMAS CORP are responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The place of

public accommodation that Defendants, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC; SACHI 

FOOD CORP; SYLSOR, CORP.; HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C.; BC 210, LLC, and CALIMAS 

CORP., own and operate the Commercial Property Business located 13707 SW 152nd Street, 

Miami, Florida.

29. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 6 of 20
7

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

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

30. Defendant, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC, as landlord and owner of 

the Commercial Property Business, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in Counts I through 

VI.

31. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 7 of 20
8

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. 

32. 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 – ADA VIOLATIONS AS TO THE COMMON AREAS, LANDLORD

AS TO EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC

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

through 32 above as though fully set forth herein.

34. Defendant, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC, has discriminated, and 

continues 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. Parking

i. There are accessible parking spaces with signs that are mounted too low, violating Section 

4.6.4 of the ADAAG and Section 502.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 8 of 20
9

i. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it was not continuous and accessible. 

Violation: There are inaccessible routes from the public sidewalk and transportation stop. 

These are violations of the requirements in Sections 4.3.2(1), 4.3.8, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2 of the 

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

resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using ramps, as they are located on an excessive slope. Violation: 

Ramps at the facility contain excessive slopes, violating Section 4.8.2 of the ADAAG and 

Section 405.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iii. 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.

iv. The Plaintiff had difficulty using some of the curb ramps, as the slopes are excessive. 

Violation: There are curb ramps at the facility that contain excessive slopes, violating Section 

4.7.2 of the ADAAG and Sections 405.2 and 406.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

v. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel due to abrupt changes in level. 

Violation: There are changes in levels of greater than 1⁄2 inch, violating Sections 4.3.8 and 4.5.2 

of the ADAAG and Section 303 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

COUNT II – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC AND SACHI FOOD CORP

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

through 32 above as though fully set forth herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 9 of 20
10

36. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC and SACHI FOOD 

CORP, 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. 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 could not enter the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance was not provided due to objects on the floor. Violation: The restroom door does not 

provide the required latch side clearance due to a lack of maintenance violating Section 4.13.6

of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the side grab bar is not 

mounted at the required height. Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements 

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 10 of 20
11

prescribed in Section 4.16.4 & Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 609.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

COUNT III – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC AND SYLSOR, CORP.

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

through 32 above as though fully set forth herein.

38. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC and SYLSOR, CORP., 

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. The Plaintiff could not traverse through areas of the store, as the required 36” path isn’t 

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

of travel connecting all essential elements of the store, in violation of Sections 4.2.1 & 4.3.3 

of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and Section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

ii. 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

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 11 of 20
12

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 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.

ii. 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.

iii. 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 do not comply with the 

requirements prescribed in Sections 4.16.4 & 4.26 of the ADAAG and Section 609.3 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. 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 IV – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC AND HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C.

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

through 32 above as though fully set forth herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 12 of 20
13

40. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC and HOLIDAY CVS, 

L.L.C., 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. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the toilet paper due to the roll not being located within a 

dispenser. Violation: Elements in the restroom are not readily accessible and usable by persons 

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

ii. 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.

iii. The Plaintiff had difficulty opening the restroom door without assistance, as the door pressure 

to operate the door was excessive. Violation: There are doors at the facility that require 

excessive force to open them, in violation of Section 4.13.11 of the ADAAG and Section 

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

COUNT V – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC AND BC 210, LLC

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

through 32 above as though fully set forth herein.

42. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC and BC 210, LLC, have

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 13 of 20
14

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. 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. 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 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.

ii. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 14 of 20
15

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.

COUNT VI – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC AND CALIMAS CORP

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

through 32 above as though fully set forth herein.

44. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY WALK) LLC and CALIMAS CORP, 

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. 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 15 of 20
16

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the toilet paper due to the roll not being located within a 

dispenser. Violation: Elements in the restroom are not readily accessible and usable by persons 

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

iii. 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.

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.

vi. The Plaintiff could not use the soap bottle without assistance, as it requires a tight grasp to 

operate. Violation: The soap dispensers require a tight grasp to operate in violation of Section 

4.27.4 of the ADAAG and Section 309.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

45. The discriminatory violations described in Counts I through VI 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 16 of 20
17

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, CARLOS BRITO, 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 

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.

46. 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.

47. 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, Defendants continue to 

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 17 of 20
18

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.

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

a 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. 

49. A Defendant is 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. 

50. 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 Defendant.

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 18 of 20
19

51. 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 operate their 

businesses, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 13707 SW 152nd Street, 

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 mobility-impaired persons; or by closing the facility until 

such time as the Defendants cure the violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 19 of 20
20

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

BEVERLY VIRUES

Florida Bar No.: 123713

Case 1:20-cv-22947-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 20 of 20