UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

DOUG LONGHINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING 

CENTER, LTD.; RK HALLANDALE 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.; ROSS 

DRESS FOR LESS INC.; BURLINGTON 

COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE 

CORPORATION; FIVE BELOW, INC.; 

P16, LLC; 88 ZEST, LLC; WES TAYTA 

CORPORATION; VISTAR 

HALLANDALE LLC; 

PANERA, LLC; BIG LOTS STORES, 

INC.; and ICE CREAM OF 

HALLANDALE LLC,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues 17070 COLLINS AVENUE 

SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP., ROSS DRESS 

FOR LESS INC.; BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION; FIVE 

BELOW, INC.; P16, LLC; 88 ZEST, LLC; WES TAYTA CORPORATION; VISTAR 

HALLANDALE LLC; PANERA, LLC; BIG LOTS STORES, INC.; and ICE CREAM OF 

HALLANDALE LLC (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

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 1 of 32
2

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.

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 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING 

CENTER, LTD. and operated a retail business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale

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

business in that place of public accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

6. At all material times Defendant 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING 

CENTER, LTD. was a Florida Limited Partnership organized under the laws of the state of Florida

with its principal place of business in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida and conducted a substantial 

amount of business in Broward County, Florida. 

7. At all material times, Defendant RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.

owned and operated a retail business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida2

1 The Property includes the following addresses: 1401-141405 E Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, 

Florida; 1405-1995 E Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, Florida. The Properties share many common 

elements including parking, walkways and even signage. Patrons would be unaware of the changes in parcels as they 

traverse the Property. The Properties share common ownership. 

2 The Property includes the following addresses: 1401-141405 E Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, 

Florida; 1405-1995 E Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, Florida. The Properties share many common 

elements including parking, walkways and even signage. Patrons would be unaware of the changes in parcels as they 

traverse the Property. The Properties share common ownership. 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 2 of 32
3

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

place of public accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

8. At all material times Defendant RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.

was a Florida limited Partnership organized under the laws of the state of Florida, with its principal 

place of business in Miami Beach, Florida and conducted a substantial amount of business in 

Broward County, Florida. 

9. At all material times, Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS INC. owned and 

operated a retail business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

10. At all material times Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS INC.. was a Foreign 

Profit Corporation organized under the laws of the state of Virginia, with its principal place of 

business in Dublin, California and conducted a substantial amount of business in Broward County, 

Florida. 

11. At all material times, Defendant BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY 

WAREHOUSE CORPORATION. owned and operated a retail business at 1401 E. Hallandale 

Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a 

substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

12. At all material times Defendant BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY 

WAREHOUSE CORPORATION. was a Foreign Profit Corporation organized under the laws of 

the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Burlington, New Jersey and conducted 

a substantial amount of business in Broward County, Florida.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 3 of 32
4

13. At all material times, Defendant FIVE BELOW, INC. owned and operated a retail 

business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter the 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

14. At all material times Defendant FIVE BELOW, INC. was a Foreign Profit 

Corporation organized under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of 

business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and conducted a substantial amount of business in Broward 

County, Florida. 

15. At all material times, Defendant P16, LLC owned and operated a retail business at 

1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) 

and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Broward 

County, Florida.

16. At all material times Defendant P16, LLC was a Florida Limited Liability Company

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

Beach, Florida, and conducted a substantial amount of business in Broward County, Florida. 

17. At all material times, Defendant 88 ZEST, LLC owned and operated a retail 

business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter the 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

18. At all material times Defendant 88 ZEST, LLC was a Florida Limited Liability 

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

Hallandale Beach, Florida, and conducted a substantial amount of business in Broward County, 

Florida. 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 4 of 32
5

19. At all material times, Defendant WES TAYTA CORPORATION owned and 

operated a retail business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

20. At all material times Defendant WES TAYTA CORPORATION was a Florida 

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

business in Hallandale Beach, Florida, and conducted a substantial amount of business in Broward 

County, Florida. 

21. At all material times, Defendant VISTAR HALLANDALE LLC owned and 

operated a retail business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

22. At all material times Defendant VISTAR HALLANDALE LLC was a Florida 

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

of business in Hallandale Beach, Florida, and conducted a substantial amount of business in 

Broward County, Florida.

23. At all material times, Defendant PANERA, LLC owned and operated a retail 

business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter the 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

24. At all material times Defendant PANERA, LLC was a Foreign Limited Liability 

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

St. Louis, Missouri, and conducted a substantial amount of business in Broward County, Florida.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 5 of 32
6

25. At all material times, Defendant BIG LOTS STORES, INC. owned and operated a 

retail business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida (hereinafter the 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

26. At all material times Defendant BIG LOTS STORES, INC. was a Foreign Limited 

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

business in Columbus, Ohio, and conducted a substantial amount of business in Broward County, 

Florida.

27. At all material times, Defendant ICE CREAM OF HALLANDALE LLC owned 

and operated a retail business at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida 

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

place of public accommodation in Broward County, Florida.

28. At all material times Defendant ICE CREAM OF HALLANDALE LLC was a 

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

principal place of business in Hallandale, Florida, and conducted a substantial amount of business 

in Broward County, Florida.

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

Commercial Property is located in Broward County, Florida, Defendants regularly conduct 

business within Broward County, Florida, and because a substantial part(s) of the events or 

omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Broward County, Florida.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

30. 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. 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 6 of 32
7

31. 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.

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

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance

33. 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. 

34. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD. and RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP., own, operate and oversee the Commercial

Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. 

35. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Hallandale 

Beach, Broward County, Florida. 

36. 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 April 17, 2019 and June 20, 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

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 7 of 32
8

and businesses located within the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of the goods and 

services offered there, and because it is approximately thirty-five (35) 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. 

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

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

Accessibility, Inc., to include the Hallandale and South Broward County area. Many members and 

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

members and prospective members. 

38. Plaintiff resides nearby in a neighboring 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. 

39. 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.

40. 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 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 8 of 32
9

barriers to access at Defendants’ 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.

41. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD. and RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP., own and 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, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD. and RK HALLANDALE 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP., are responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The 

place of public accommodation that Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING 

CENTER, LTD. and RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP., own and operate the 

Commercial Property Business located at 1401 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale.

42. 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 XI 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

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 9 of 32
10

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.

43. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD. and RK

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP., as landlords and owners of the Commercial

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

44. 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 XI 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. 

45. 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 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 10 of 32
11

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE COMMON AREAS)

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

through 45 above as though fully set forth herein.

47. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD. and RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP., 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. Parking

i. The Plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as designated accessible parking space access 

aisles are located on an excessive slope. Violation: There are accessible parking space access 

aisles located on an excessive slope violating Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG and Section 502.4 

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

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

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 some of the curb ramps, as the slope of the adjoining road 

surface has a slope in excess of 5%. Violation: There are curb ramps at the facility that contain 

excessive slopes at adjacent road surfaces violating Section 4.7.2 of the ADAAG and Sections 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 11 of 32
12

iii. 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.

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, 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.

vi. 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.

vii. 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.

viii. 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 12 of 32
13

ix. The Plaintiff could not enter tenant spaces without assistance, as the required level landing is 

not provided. Violation: A level landing that is 60 inches minimum perpendicular to the 

doorway is not provided at accessible entrances violating Section 4.13.6 and Figure 25(a) of 

the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

COUNT II

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND ROSS DRESS FOR LESS INC.)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

49. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and ROSS DRESS FOR LESS 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. Public Restrooms

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

not self-closing and does not have compliant door hardware. Violation: The accessible toilet 

compartment door does not provide hardware and features that comply with Sections 4.17.5 

and 4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 13 of 32
14

ii. The Plaintiff could not enter the accessible toilet compartment without assistance, as the 

required maneuvering clearance is not provided. Violation: The accessible toilet compartment 

does not provide the required latch side clearance at the door violating Sections 4.13.6 and 

4.17.5 of the ADAAG and Sections 404.2.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff could not use the toilet seat cover dispenser without assistance as it is mounted at 

a location where the clear floor space to access it is not provided. Violation: The clear floor 

space provided at elements in the restroom violates the provisions of Sections 4.2.4 and 4.27.2 

of the ADAAG and Section 305.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

iv. 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.

v. 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.

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

accessible toilet compartment has 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 14 of 32
15

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

it. Accessible elements are not properly maintained. Violation: There are lavatories in public 

restrooms without the required toe clearances provided, violating the requirements in 28 CFR 

36.211, Section 4.19.2 of the ADAAG, and Sections 305.4, 306.2 & 606.2 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

viii. The Plaintiff could not use the soap 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.

COUNT III

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY 

WAREHOUSE CORPORATION)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

51. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY 

WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, 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 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 15 of 32
16

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.

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 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.

COUNT IV

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND FIVE BELOW, INC.)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

53. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and FIVE BELOW, 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. Public Restrooms

i. The Plaintiff could not exit the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance is not provided. Violation: The restroom door does not provide the required latch 

side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 16 of 32
17

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.

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 grab bars are not mounted 

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

vi. 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.

vii. The Plaintiff could not use the toilet without assistance as the seat is mounted too low. 

Violation: The water closet seats are mounted at a non-compliant height from the floor in 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 17 of 32
18

violation of Section 4.16.3 of the ADAAG and Section 604.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

COUNT V

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND P16, LLC)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

55. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and P16, 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.

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 exit the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance is not provided. Violation: The restroom door does not provide the required latch 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 18 of 32
19

side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff could not flush the toilet without assistance, as the flush valve is not mounted on 

the wide area. Violation: The flush valve is not mounted on the compliant side in violation of 

Section 4.16.5 of the ADAAG and Section 604.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution 

is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff could not use the toilet paper dispenser without assistance, as it is not mounted at 

the required location. Violation: The toilet paper dispenser is not mounted in accordance with 

Section 4.16.6 and Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 604.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the soap 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.

COUNT VI

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND 88 ZEST, LLC)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

57. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and 88 ZEST, 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 19 of 32
20

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 exit the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance is not provided. Violation: The restroom door does not provide the required latch 

side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff could not enter the accessible toilet compartment without assistance, as the 

required maneuvering clearance is not provided. Violation: The accessible toilet compartment 

does not provide the required latch side clearance at the door violating Sections 4.13.6 and 

4.17.5 of the ADAAG and Sections 404.2.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

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

not self-closing and does not have compliant door hardware. Violation: The accessible toilet 

compartment door does not provide hardware and features that comply with Sections 4.17.5 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 20 of 32
21

and 4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. 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.

v. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as objects are mounted below 

and on a grab bar obstructing its use. There is a lack of maintenance. 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, 28 CFR 36.211, and Section 609.3 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vi. The Plaintiff could not flush the toilet without assistance, as the flush valve is not mounted on 

the wide area. Violation: The flush valve is not mounted on the compliant side in violation of 

Section 4.16.5 of the ADAAG and Section 604.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution 

is readily achievable.

vii. 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.

viii. 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 21 of 32
22

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

accessible toilet compartment has 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.

COUNT VII

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND WES TAYTA CORPORATION)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

59. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and WES TAYTA CORPORATION, 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 could not enter the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance is not provided. Violation: The restroom door does not provide the required latch 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 22 of 32
23

side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the doorknob and the locking mechanism on the restroom 

door without assistance, as they require tight grasping. Violation: The restroom door has noncompliant 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 objects are mounted less than 

11⁄2“ below a grab bar obstructing its use. Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the 

requirements prescribed in Sections 4.16.4 & 4.26.2 of the ADAAG and Section and 609.3 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

COUNT VIII

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND VISTAR HALLANDALE LLC)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

61. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and VISTAR HALLANDALE 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

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 23 of 32
24

i. 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.

Public Restrooms

i. The Plaintiff could not enter the accessible toilet compartment without assistance, as the 

required maneuvering clearance is not provided. Violation: The accessible toilet compartment 

does not provide the required latch side clearance at the door violating Sections 4.13.6 and 

4.17.5 of the ADAAG and Sections 404.2.4 and 604.8.1.2 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 and does not have compliant door hardware. Violation: The accessible toilet 

compartment door does not provide hardware and features that comply with Sections 4.17.5 

and 4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff could not close the door in the accessible toilet compartment, as it is hanging 

loose from its hinges and not properly maintained. Accessible elements at the facility are not 

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

resolution is readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the toilet seat cover dispenser without assistance as it is mounted at 

a location where the clear floor space to access it is not provided. Violation: The clear floor 

space provided at elements in the restroom violates the provisions of Sections 4.2.4 and 4.27.2 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 24 of 32
25

of the ADAAG and Section 305.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

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

COUNT IX

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND PANERA, LLC)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

63. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and PANERA, 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. 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.

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the rear grab bar in the accessible toilet compartment, as the 

toilet is mounted less than 1 1/2” below it, obstructing its use. Violation: The grab bars do not 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 25 of 32
26

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.

COUNT X

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND BIG LOTS STORES, INC)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

65. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and BIG LOTS STORES, 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 are drinking fountains that don’t provide access to those who have difficulty bending or 

stooping. Violation: There are drinking fountains that are in violation of Section 4.1.3(10) of 

the ADAAG and Sections 211.2 & 602.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

B. Public Restrooms

i. The Plaintiff could not exit the restroom area without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance was not provided due to the location of a trashcan. Violation: The restroom area 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 26 of 32
27

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 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.

iii. 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.

COUNT XI

(AS TO DEFENDANTS 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND ICE CREAM OF HALLANDALE 

LLC)

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

45 above as though fully set forth herein.

67. Defendants, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK 

HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and ICE CREAM OF HALLANDALE 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

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 27 of 32
28

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 flush the toilet without assistance, as the flush valve is not mounted on 

the wide area. Violation: The flush valve is not mounted on the compliant side in violation of 

Section 4.16.5 of the ADAAG and Section 604.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution 

is readily achievable.

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

required length. Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed in 

Section 4.16.4 and Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 604.5.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

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

the required location. Violation: The toilet paper dispenser is not mounted in accordance with 

Section 4.16.6 and Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 604.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 28 of 32
29

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

68. The discriminatory violations described in Counts I through XI 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 

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.

69. 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.

70. Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 29 of 32
30

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.

71. 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. 

72. 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. 

73. 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 30 of 32
31

and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). All other conditions precedent have been met by Plaintiff

or waived by the Defendants.

74. 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 1401 E. Hallandale Beach 

Boulevard, Hallandale, 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, 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 31 of 32
32

Dated: July 7, 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

BEVERLY VIRUES

Florida Bar No. 123713

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 32 of 32