1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

RENZO BARBERI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SMALLWOOD'S, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company and SMALLWOOD'S 

13, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability 

Company,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), through the undersigned 

counsel, hereby files this complaint and sues SMALLWOOD'S, LLC

(“SMALLWOOD'S”), and SMALLWOOD'S 13, L.L.C., (“SMALLWOOD'S 13”) 

(hereinafter, collectively referred to as “Defendants”), for declaratory and 

injunctive relief; for discrimination based on disability; and for the resultant 

attorney's fees, expenses, and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs 

and expert fees), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181 et. seq., ("AMERICANS WITH 

DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990," or "ADA") and alleges:

JURISDICTION 

1. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under Title 42 U.S.C. 

§12181 et. seq., based on Defendants’ violations of Title III of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990, (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA"). See also 

28 U.S.C. §2201 and §2202.

VENUE

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

2. The venue of all events giving rise to this lawsuit is located in Broward

County, Florida. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(B) and rule 3.1 of Local Rules of 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, this is the 

designated court for this suit.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI, is a resident of the State of Florida. At the 

time of Plaintiff’s visit to Smallwood’s Yachtwear (“Subject Facility”), Plaintiff 

suffered from a “qualified disability” under the ADA, and required the use of a 

wheelchair for mobility. Specifically, Plaintiff suffers from paraplegia due to a 

severed T4 and T5, and is therefore confined to his wheelchair. The Plaintiff 

personally visited Smallwood’s Yachtwear, but was denied full and equal access, 

and full and equal enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods, and amenities 

within Smallwood’s Yachtwear, which is the subject of this lawsuit. The Subject 

Facility is a clothing store and Plaintiff wanted to inquire about their 

merchandise and shop for clothing but was unable to due to the discriminatory 

barriers enumerated in Paragraph 15 of this Complaint.

4. In the alternative, Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI, is an advocate of the 

rights of similarly situated disabled persons and is a “tester” for the purpose of 

asserting his civil rights and monitoring, ensuring and determining whether 

places of public accommodation are in compliance with the ADA. 

5. Defendants, SMALLWOOD'S and SMALLWOOD'S 13 are authorized to 

conduct business and are in fact conducting business within the State of Florida. 

The Subject Facility is located at 1001 SE 17th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316. Upon 

information and belief, SMALLWOOD'S is the lessee and/or operator of the Real 

Property and therefore held accountable of the violations of the ADA in the 

Subject Facility which is the matter of this suit. Upon information and belief, 

SMALLWOOD'S 13 is the owner and lessor of the Real Property where the Subject 

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

Facility is located and therefore held accountable for the violations of the ADA 

in the Subject Facility which is the matter of this suit.

CLAIMS: VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

6. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 

through 5 of this complaint, as are further explained herein.

7. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act 

("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq. Commercial enterprises were provided one 

and a half years from enactment of the statute to implement its requirements. 

The effective date of Title III of the ADA was January 26, 1992, or January 26, 

1993 if Defendants had ten (10) or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

$500,000 or less. See 42 U.S.C. §12181; 28 C.F.R. §36.508(a).

8. As stated in 42 U.S.C. §12101(a) (1)-(3), (5) and (9), Congress found, 

among other things, that:

i. some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental 

disability, and this number shall increase as the population continues to 

grow and age;

ii. historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals 

with disabilities and, despite some improvements, such forms of 

discrimination against disabled individuals continue to be a pervasive 

social problem, requiring serious attention;

iii. discrimination against disabled individuals persists in such critical 

areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, transportation, 

communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting 

and access to public services and public facilities;

iv. individuals with disabilities continually suffer forms of 

discrimination, including: outright intentional exclusion; the 

discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and 

communication barriers; failure to make modifications to existing 

facilities and practices; exclusionary qualification standards and 

criteria; segregation, and regulation to lesser services, programs,

benefits, or other opportunities; and,

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

v. the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and 

prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on 

an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which this country 

is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in 

unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and non-productivity.

9. As stated in 42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)(2) and (4), Congress explicitly stated 

that the purpose of the ADA was to:

i. provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination 

of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

ii. provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and,

iii. invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to 

enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to 

address the major areas of discrimination faced on a daily basis by 

people with disabilities.

10. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7), and 28 CFR §36.104, Title III, no 

individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards 

to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or 

accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who 

owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 

Smallwood’s Yachtwear is a place of public accommodation by the fact it is an 

establishment that provides goods/services to the general public, and therefore, 

must comply with the ADA. The Subject Facility is open to the public, its 

operations affect commerce, and it is a clothing store. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12181 

(7) and 28 C.F.R. 36.104. Therefore, the Subject Facility is a public 

accommodation that must comply with the ADA.

11. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate against 

the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, and 

full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages 

and/or accommodations at Smallwood’s Yachtwear located at 1001 SE 17th Street, Fort 

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

Lauderdale, FL 33316, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §12182, and 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. 

seq.; and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

12. Plaintiff has visited the Subject Facility, and has been denied full, safe, 

and equal access to the facility and therefore suffered an injury in fact.

13. Plaintiff shall suffer a future injury as Plaintiff intends to return and 

enjoy the goods and/or services at the Subject Facility within the next six 

months. The Subject Facility is in close proximity to Plaintiff’s residence and is 

in an area frequently travelled by Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff will also 

return to monitor compliance with the ADA. However, Plaintiff is precluded 

from doing so by the Defendants' failure and refusal to provide people with 

disabilities with full and equal access to their facility. Therefore, Plaintiff 

continues to suffer from discrimination and injury due to the architectural 

barriers, which are in violation of the ADA.

14. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on July 26, 1991, the 

Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, promulgated Federal 

Regulations to implement the requirements of the ADA. The ADA Accessibility 

guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, may cause 

violators to obtain civil penalties of up to $55,000 for the first violation and 

$110,000 for any subsequent violation. 

15. The Defendants are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12181 et. seq., and 28 

C.F.R. 36.302 et. seq., and are discriminating against the Plaintiff with the 

following specific violations which Plaintiff personally encountered and/or has 

knowledge of:

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

a) The customer parking facility behind the business does not provide a compliant 

accessible parking space. 2010 ADA Standards 502.1 

b) The parking facility does not have the minimum number of compliant accessible 

parking spaces required. 2010 ADA Standards 208.2 

c) There are twenty four (24) standard parking spaces and one (1) non-compliant 

accessible parking space in the customer parking lot. The parking facility does not 

provide a compliant accessible parking space. One (1) compliant accessible space 

is required. 2010 ADA Standards 208.2 

d) There is one (1) non-compliant accessible parking space located on the northwest 

end of property. 2010 ADA Standards 502.2 

e) The non-compliant accessible parking space is located furthest from the main east 

store entrance and the north second floor entrance. Parking spaces that serve a 

particular building or facility must be located on the shortest accessible route from 

parking to a main entrance. 2010 ADA Standards 208.3.1 

f) The non-compliant accessible parking space does not have the correct ground 

markings. Accessible parking spaces must be striped in a manner that is consistent 

with the standards of the controlling jurisdiction (FDOT) for other spaces and 

prominently outlined with blue paint, and must be repainted when necessary, to be 

clearly distinguishable as a parking space designated for persons who have 

disabilities. 2010 ADA Standards 502.6.1 

g) The non-compliant accessible parking space sign is missing required information. 

Each accessible parking space must be posted with a permanent above-grade sign 

of a color and design approved by the Department of Transportation, which is 

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

placed on or at least 60 inches above the finished floor or ground surface 

measured to the bottom of the sign and which bears the international symbol of 

accessibility and the caption “PARKING BY ACCESSIBLE PERMIT ONLY” 

and must indicate the penalty for illegal use of the space. 2010 ADA Standards 

502.6 

h) The faded access aisle is encroached by bushes. The access aisle adjacent to the 

accessible parking space does not provide the required width. Access aisles 

serving car and van parking spaces must be 60 inches wide minimum. 2010 ADA 

Standards 502.3.1 

i) Access aisles serving car and van parking must extend the full length of the 

parking spaces they serve, be marked so as to discourage parking in them and 

striped diagonally to designate it as a no-parking zone. 2010 ADA Standards 

502.3.2, 502.3.3 

j) There is no compliant access aisle attached to an accessible route serving any 

existing parking space which would allow safe entrance or exit of vehicle for 

accessible persons requiring mobility devices. 2010 ADA Standards 502.2 

k) There is currently no existing accessible route to help persons with disabilities 

safely maneuver through the parking facility as required in 2010 ADA Standards 

502.3 

l) Existing facility does not provide a compliant accessible route to the main 

entrance from any site arrival point. 2010 ADA Standards 206.2, 208, 401.1, 502

m) Located on the north side of the building is a vertical change in level (stairs) 

rising from the driveway parking lot surface up to the second floor office door 

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

landing creating a barrier for persons with mobility disabilities. 2010 ADA 

Standards 303.2, 404.2.4 

n) The existing handrail on the stairs is non-compliant. The inside handrail is 

missing. Handrails must be provided on both sides of stairs. 2010 ADA Standards 

505.2 

o) At the main entrance on the southwest corner of building there is a vertical change 

in level (steps) from the sidewalk surface up to the main office door landing 

creating a barrier for persons with disabilities from safely entering the store. Stairs 

must have handrails. 2010 ADA Standards 504.6 

p) There is a non-compliant ramp on the south side of building leading up to the 

main office door landing. Ramp handrails must extend horizontally above the 

landing for 12 inches minimum beyond the top and bottom of ramp runs. 

Extensions must return to a wall, guard, or the landing surface, or must be 

continuous to the handrail of an adjacent ramp run. 2010 ADA Standards 

505.10.1

16. Upon information and belief there are other current violations of the ADA 

at Smallwood’s Yachtwear. Only upon full inspection can all violations be 

identified. Accordingly, a complete list of violations will require an on-site 

inspection by Plaintiff’s representatives pursuant to Rule 34b of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

17. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that removal of the 

discriminatory barriers and violations is readily achievable and technically 

feasible. To date, the readily achievable barriers and other violations of the 

ADA still exist and have not been remedied or altered in such a way as to 

effectuate compliance with the provisions of the ADA.

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

18. Pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., and 28 C.F.R. §36.304, 

the Defendants were required to make the establishment a place of public 

accommodation, accessible to persons with disabilities by January 28, 1992. As 

of this date the Defendants have failed to comply with this mandate.

19. The Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned counsel for the 

filing and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff is entitled to have its reasonable 

attorney's fees, costs and expenses paid by the Defendants, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §12205.

20. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188, this Court is vested with the authority to 

grant Plaintiff injunctive relief, including an order to alter the subject facilities 

to make them readily accessible and useable by individuals with disabilities to 

the extent required by the ADA, and closing the Subject Facility until the 

requisite modifications are completed.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and 

requests the following injunctive and declaratory relief:

21. That this Honorable Court declares that the Subject Facility owned, operated 

and/or controlled by the Defendants is in violation of the ADA;

22. That this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to alter the 

Subject Facility to make it accessible to and usable by individuals with 

disabilities to the full extent required by Title III of the ADA;

23. That this Honorable Court enter an Order directing the Defendants to 

evaluate and neutralize their policies, practices and procedures toward persons 

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

with disabilities, for such reasonable time so as to allow the Defendants to 

undertake and complete corrective procedures to the Subject Facility;

24. That this Honorable Court award reasonable attorney's fees, all costs 

(including, but not limited to court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of 

suit, to the Plaintiff; and

25. That this Honorable Court award such other and further relief as it deems 

necessary, just and proper.

Dated this July 27, 2020.

Respectfully submitted by:

Ronald E. Stern

Ronald E. Stern, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 10089

THE ADVOCACY LAW FIRM, P.A.

1250 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Suite 503

Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 639-7016

Facsimile: (954) 639-7198

Email: ronsternlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 10 of 12
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

RENZO BARBERI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SMALLWOOD'S, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company and SMALLWOOD'S 

13, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability 

Company,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 27, 2020, I electronically filed the 

Complaint along with a Summons for each Defendant with the Clerk of Court 

using CM/ECF. I also certify that the aforementioned documents are being 

served on all counsel of record, corporations, or pro se parties identified on the 

attached Service List in the manner specified via Service of Process by an 

authorized Process Server, and that all future pleadings, motions and documents 

will be served either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated 

by CM/ECF or via U.S. Mail for those counsel or parties who are not authorized 

to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

By: Ronald E. Stern

Ronald E. Stern, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 10089

THE ADVOCACY LAW FIRM, P.A.

1250 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Suite 503

Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 639-7016

Facsimile: (954) 639-7198

Email: ronsternlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff RENZO BARBERI

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 11 of 12
12

SERVICE LIST:

RENZO BARBERI, Plaintiff, vs. SMALLWOOD'S, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability 

Company and SMALLWOOD'S 13, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company

United States District Court Southern District Of Florida

CASE NO.

SMALLWOOD'S, LLC

REGISTERED AGENT:

SMALLWOOD, HELEN F.

1001 SE 17TH STREET

FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

SMALLWOOD'S 13, L.L.C.

REGISTERED AGENT:

SMALLWOOD, HELEN

1001 SE 17TH STREET

FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33316

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

Case 0:20-cv-61522-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 12 of 12