1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

RENZO BARBERI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WINWOOD MOTOR LODGE INC., a 

Florida Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

counsel, hereby files this complaint and sues WINWOOD MOTOR LODGE INC.

(“MOTOR LODGE”), (hereinafter, referred to as “Defendant”), 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 Defendant’s 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

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 

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

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 Winwood Motor Lodge (“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 Winwood Motor Lodge, but was denied full and equal access, and 

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

Winwood Motor Lodge, which is the subject of this lawsuit. The Subject Facility is

a hotel and Plaintiff wanted to obtain lodging 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. Defendant, MOTOR LODGE is authorized to conduct business and is in fact 

conducting business within the State of Florida. The Subject Facility is located 

at 505 SE 18th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3331. Upon information and belief, MOTOR 

LODGE 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, MOTOR LODGE is also the 

owner and lessor of the Real Property where the Subject 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

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

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,

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.

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

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. 

Winwood Motor Lodge 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 hotel. 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 Defendant has discriminated, and continues 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 Winwood Motor Lodge located at 505 SE 18th Street, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 3331, 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).

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

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 Defendant’s 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 Defendant is in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12181 et. seq., and 28 C.F.R. 

36.302 et. seq., and is discriminating against the Plaintiff with the following 

specific violations which Plaintiff personally encountered and/or has knowledge 

of:

a) There are five (5) standard parking spaces and one (1) non-compliant accessible 

parking space in the parking lot of the motel. The parking facility does not 

provide a compliant accessible parking space. 2010 ADA Standards 502.1 

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

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

parking spaces required. 2010 ADA Standards 208.2 

c) There is one (1) non-compliant accessible parking space located on the property. 

2010 ADA Standards 502.2 

d) 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 

e) The non-compliant accessible parking space sign is hidden in low bushes. The 

sign is missing required information regarding towing and fine verbiage. 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 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 

f) There is no access aisle adjacent to the accessible parking space. An accessible 

parking space must have an adjacent access aisle. 2010 ADA Standards 502.2 

g) 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

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

502.3.2, 502.3.3 

h) 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 

i) 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 

j) 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

k) There is a vertical change in level (steps) from the driveway parking lot surface 

up to the landing in front of the motel office door creating a barrier for persons 

with mobility disabilities. 2010 ADA Standards 303.2, 404.2.4 

l) The existing handrail on the stairs is non-compliant. At the bottom of a stair 

flight, handrails must extend at the slope of the stair flight for a horizontal 

distance at least equal to one tread depth beyond the last riser nosing. Extension 

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

handrail of an adjacent stair flight. 2010 ADA Standards 505.10.3 

m) The west side handrail is missing. Handrails must be provided on both sides of 

stairs. 2010 ADA Standards 505.2 

n) There is a vertical change in level (step) from the landing surface up to the motel 

office door creating a barrier for persons with disabilities from safely entering the 

rental office. 2010 ADA Standards 303.2, 404.2.4 

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

o) The motel office door has a non-compliant knob type door handle. 2010 ADA 

Standards 309.4 

p) There is a vertical change in level (step) from the outside building walkway up to 

the motel room entrance doors creating a barrier for persons with a mobility 

disability from entering rooms. 2010 ADA Standards 303.2 

q) The motel room doors have non-compliant knob type door handles. Operable 

parts must be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, 

pinching, or twisting of the wrist. 2010 ADA Standards 309.4 

r) There is no accessible motel guest room. In transient lodging facilities, guest 

rooms with mobility features must be provided in accordance with Table 224.2 

which states if facility has between 1-25 guest rooms one accessible room is 

required. 2010 ADA Standards 224.2 

s) All buildings, structures, or facilities licensed as a motel, motel, or condominium 

pursuant to chapter 509, F.S., a number of rooms equaling at least 5 percent of the 

guest rooms minus the Total Number of Required (accessible) Rooms required by 

Table 224.2 must provide special accessibility features of 806.4. 2010 ADA 

Standards 224.2, 806.2, 2015 Florida Accessibility Code 224.6.3

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

at Winwood Motor Lodge. 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

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.

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

the Defendant was required to make the establishment a place of public 

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

of this date the Defendant has 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 Defendant, 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 Defendant 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 Defendant is in violation of the ADA;

22. That this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring Defendant 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;

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

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

evaluate and neutralize their policies, practices and procedures toward persons 

with disabilities, for such reasonable time so as to allow the Defendant 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-61523-XXXX 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.

WINWOOD MOTOR LODGE INC., a 

Florida Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

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-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 11 of 12
12

SERVICE LIST:

RENZO BARBERI, Plaintiff, vs. WINWOOD MOTOR LODGE INC., a Florida Profit 

Corporation

United States District Court Southern District Of Florida

CASE NO.

WINWOOD MOTOR LODGE INC.

REGISTERED AGENT:

HOFFMEIER, FREDERICK

1925 S. PERIMETER ROAD

SUITE 125

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33309

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

Case 0:20-cv-61523-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 12 of 12