UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

CARLOS BRITO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC; 

SOUTHLAND ITALIAN LLC; T4 

MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOHERTY 

APPLE FLORIDA, LLC,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues SOUTHLAND MALL 

PROPERTIES LLC; SOUTHLAND ITALIAN LLC; T4 MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOHERTY 

APPLE FLORIDA, 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

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-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 1 of 21
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, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC, 

owned and operated a commercial shopping center 20505 S Dixie Hwy, 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, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC, was 

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

of business in New York, New York. 

7. At all times material, Defendant, SOUTHLAND ITALIAN LLC, owned and 

operated a commercial shopping center 20505 S Dixie Hwy, Miami, Florida (hereinafter the 

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

accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

8. At all times material, Defendant, SOUTHLAND ITALIAN LLC, was a Florida

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

in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

9. At all times material, Defendant, T4 MANAGEMENT LLC owned and operated 

a commercial shopping center 20505 S Dixie Hwy, Miami, Florida (hereinafter the “Commercial 

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

in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

10. At all times material, Defendant, T4 MANAGEMENT LLC, was a foreign 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 2 of 21
3

in Cutler Bay, Florida. 

11. At all times material, Defendant, DOHERTY APPLE FLORIDA, LLC owned 

and operated a commercial shopping center 20505 S Dixie Hwy, Miami, Florida (hereinafter the 

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

accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

12. At all times material, Defendant, DOHERTY APPLE FLORIDA, LLC, was a 

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

business in Allendale, New Jersey. 

13. 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

14. 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. 

15. 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.

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

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 3 of 21
4

17. 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.

18. Defendant, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC, owns, operates and 

oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. 

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

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

20. 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 nine (9) 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. 

21. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 4 of 21
5

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. 

22. 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.

23. 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 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, CARLOS BRITO, and others 

similarly situated.

24. Defendants, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC; SOUTHLAND 

ITALIAN LLC; T4 MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOHERTY APPLE FLORIDA, LLC, 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, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES 

LLC; SOUTHLAND ITALIAN LLC; T4 MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOHERTY APPLE 

FLORIDA, LLC are responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The place of

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 5 of 21
6

public accommodation that Defendants, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC; 

SOUTHLAND ITALIAN LLC; T4 MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOHERTY APPLE FLORIDA, 

LLC, own and operate the Commercial Property Business located 20505 S Dixie Hwy, Miami, 

Florida.

25. 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 the businesses located within the Commercial Property,

including but not necessarily limited to the allegations in Counts I through IV 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.

26. Defendant, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC, as landlord and owner of 

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

IV.

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

threat of discrimination from the Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the 

described Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property, but not 

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 6 of 21
7

necessarily limited to the allegations in Counts I through IV 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. 

28. Defendant has 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 SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC

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

through 28 above as though fully set forth herein.

30. Defendant, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES 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:

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 7 of 21
8

A. Parking

i. The Plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as designated accessible parking spaces are 

located on an excessive slope. Violation: There are accessible parking spaces 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.

ii. 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.

iii. There are accessible parking spaces and access aisles with faded striping that makes it 

impossible to differentiate the boundaries. The facility fails to make reasonable 

accommodations in policies, practices and procedures to provide full and equal enjoyment of 

disabled individuals and does not maintain the elements that are required to be readily 

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

iv. The Plaintiff had difficulty accessing the facility, as there are designated accessible parking 

spaces located too far from an accessible entrance due to the fact that there are closed entrances. 

The signage is on the window and not somewhere where a person would not already be out of 

their vehicle. At one entrance the exterior signage states that the store is open. Violation: Some 

of the accessible parking spaces are not located on the shortest route to an accessible entrance, 

violating Section 4.6.2 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and Section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 8 of 21
9

i. 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.

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as there are cross slopes in excess of 

2%. Violation: The path of travel contains excessive cross slopes in violation of Section 4.3.7 

of the ADAAG and Section 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

iii. 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.

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

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

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

ADAAG and Sections 206.2.1, 302.1, 303, and 402.2 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.

C. Access to Goods and Services

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 9 of 21
10

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 use the sales counters without assistance, as they are mounted too high. 

Violation: There are sales counters at the facility in excess of 36” high, violating Section 7.2(1)

of the ADAAG and Section 904.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

iii. There are drinking fountains that have the spout too high. Violation: There are drinking 

fountains that are in violation of Sections 4.1.3(10) & 4.15.2 of the ADAAG and Sections 

211.2 & 602.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. 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.

D. Public Restrooms

i. There are permanently designated interior spaces without proper signage, violating Section 

4.1.3(16) and 4.30 of the ADAAG and Sections 216.2 and 703 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff could not use the vending machines without assistance as they require tight 

grasping to operate. Violation: There are self-service areas with elements that require tight 

grasping violating Section 4.27.4 of the ADAAG and Section 309.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 10 of 21
11

iii. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatory outside the accessible toilet compartment without 

assistance, as the required knee and toe clearance is not provided. Violation: There are 

lavatories outside the accessible toilet compartment that don’t provide the required clearances 

violating Section 4.19.2 & Figure 31 of the ADAAG and Sections 213.3.4 & 606.5 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

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

high. Violation: There are dispensers provided for public use in the restroom, with controls 

outside the ranges prescribed in Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.27.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 

308 & 309.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. The Plaintiff could not exit 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.

vi. 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.

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

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

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

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 11 of 21
12

viii. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance in the accessible toilet 

compartment, as objects are mounted less than 1 1/2” below a grab bar, obstructing its use. 

Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Sections 4.17.6 

and 4.26 of the ADAAG and Section 609.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

ix. 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 in the accessible toilet compartment do not comply 

with the requirements prescribed in Section 4.17.6 of the ADAAG and Section 604.5.1 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

x. There are restrooms that are designated as accessible yet are closed (Covid 19) without 

directional signage towards an accessible restroom. Violation: Closed restrooms lack 

directional signage to the location of an accessible restroom, violating Sections 4.1.2(7d), 

4.1.3(16b), & 4.30 of the ADAAG and Sections 216.3, 216.8, & 703.5 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

COUNT II – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC AND SOUTHLAND ITALIAN LLC

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

through 28 above as though fully set forth herein.

32. Defendants, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC and SOUTHLAND 

ITALIAN 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 12 of 21
13

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 was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory outside the 

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

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

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

resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatory outside the accessible toilet compartment without 

assistance, as the required knee clearance is not provided. Violation: There are lavatories 

outside the accessible toilet compartment that don’t provide the required clearances violating 

Section 4.19.2 & Figure 31 of the ADAAG and Sections 213.3.4, 306.3, & 606.2 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 

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 use the coat hook without assistance, as it is mounted too high. 

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

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 13 of 21
14

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.

vi. 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.

vii. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance in the accessible toilet 

compartment, as objects are mounted less than 1 1/2” below a grab bar, obstructing its use. 

Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Sections 4.17.6 

and 4.26 of the ADAAG and Section 609.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

COUNT III – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC AND T4 MANAGEMENT LLC

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

through 28 above as though fully set forth herein.

34. Defendants, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC and T4 

MANAGEMENT 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 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 14 of 21
15

i. There is seating provided at the facility that does not comply with the standards prescribed in 

Section 4.32 of the ADAAG and Sections 226 & 902 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The Plaintiff could not utilize the bar counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: There are 

bar counters that are not at the prescribed height, violating Section 4.32.4 and 5.2 of the 

ADAAG and Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

B. Public Restrooms

i. The Plaintiff could not use the 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 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 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 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 15 of 21
16

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

high. Violation: There are dispensers provided for public use in the restroom, with controls 

outside the ranges prescribed in Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.27.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 

308 & 309.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

COUNT IV – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC AND DOHERTY APPLE FLORIDA,

LLC

35. The Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 above 

as though fully set forth herein.

36. Defendants, SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC and DOHERTY APPLE 

FLORIDA, 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. The Plaintiff could not utilize the bar counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: There are 

bar counters that are not at the prescribed height, violating Section 4.32.4 and 5.2 of the 

ADAAG and Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

B. Public Restrooms

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 16 of 21
17

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.

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

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

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

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

is readily achievable.

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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 in the accessible toilet compartment do not comply 

with the requirements prescribed in Section 4.17.6 of the ADAAG and Section 604.5.1 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 17 of 21
18

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

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

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

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

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

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

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

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

achievable.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

37. The discriminatory violations described in Counts I through IV are not an 

exclusive list of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the 

Defendant’s 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, 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.

38. The individual Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly situated, have been 

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 18 of 21
19

denied access to, and have been denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities 

privileges, benefits, programs and activities offered by Defendant, Defendant’s buildings, 

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

Defendant because of the Defendant’s ADA violations as set forth above. The individual 

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and 

damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested herein. In order to remedy 

this discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Defendant’s place of public 

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

Disabilities Act.

39. Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him 

access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility, in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendant continues 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.

40. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 19 of 21
20

entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses from Defendant pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

41. 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 

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

42. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of the Defendant’s failure to cure 

the violations by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if 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.

43. 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 Defendant operate its

businesses, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 20505 S Dixie Hwy, 

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 Defendant cure the violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendant at the commencement of the subject 

Case 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 20 of 21
21

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 Defendant 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 Defendant to 

make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are 

necessary to afford all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 

accommodations to individuals with disabilities; and by failing to take such steps that may be 

necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or 

otherwise treated differently than other individuals 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 10, 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 1:20-cv-22840-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 21 of 21