Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: _______________________

CINDY GOLDSTEIN,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

THE ALPHA HOUSE INC. d/b/a

M BOUTIQUE HOTEL,

 Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, CINDY GOLDSTEIN (“Plaintiff”), by her undersigned counsel, hereby files

this Complaint and sues, THE ALPHA HOUSE INC. d/b/a M BOUTIQUE HOTEL

(“Defendant”), for injunctive relief attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs, including but not limited 

to disbursements, court expenses, and other fees, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., (hereinafter the “A.D.A”).

JURISDICTION

1. Defendant owns and/or operates that certain hotel known as M BOUTIQUE 

HOTEL, located in Miami Beach, Florida (the “Hotel”). The Hotel has a website located at 

www.mboutiquehotel.com (the “Website”). The Hotel takes reservations through its Website and 

provides information regarding available guestrooms and amenities.

2. As of March 15, 2012, Defendant was required to ensure that all of its reservation 

systems, including its online reservation systems (a) identify and describe disabled accessible 

features of the Hotel in detail; (b) identify and describe disabled accessible features of ADA 

compliant guest rooms in detail; (c) permit disabled individuals to independently assess whether 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 1 of 13
Page 2 of 13

the Hotel and its available guestrooms meet their individual accessibility needs (by describing 

accessible and inaccessible features); and (d) allow reservations to be taken for accessible 

guestrooms in the same manner as for non-accessible guestrooms1. Defendant has not complied. 

This lawsuit follows.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C., §§1331, 1343, as Plaintiff’s claims arise under 42 U.S.C. §12181. et seq., based upon the 

enumerated violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (see also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202). 

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action. Defendant 

owns or operates the Website, which is an interactive website through which Defendant seeks to 

consummate financial transaction (reservations and payments) with residents of this District (and 

others) who visit the Website, and Defendant violated Plaintiff’s civil rights in this District, as 

set forth more fully below. 

5. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2), Defendant’s subject 

property for which the online reservation system exists is in this District.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, CINDY GOLDSTEIN, is a resident of Florida and currently lives in 

Tampa, Florida and is sui juris. She is a qualified individual with disabilities under the ADA law. 

Plaintiff is unable to engage in the major life activity of walking without assistive devices. As 

such Plaintiff utilizes a wheelchair to ambulate or with a cane or other supportive devices. 

Plaintiff also has limited use of her hands. She owns her own vehicle, does drive and travels 

1 This is a non-exclusive list of requirements imposed by 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(l). These requirements apply not 

only to the Website, but also to every online reservation system, including third party websites, on which 

reservations can be made to stay at the Hotel, including orbitz.com, travelocity.com, hotels.com, and others. 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 13

frequently. Plaintiffs access to the premises described below (the "Property" or “Facility”) 

through Defendant's reservation system contained on its website, and therefore her full and equal 

enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations 

offered at the Property, were restricted and limited because of Plaintiff’s disability and will be 

restricted in the future unless and until Defendant is compelled to cure the ADA violations 

relating to the reservation system contained on its website. Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant's 

reservation system on its website for the Property soon to avail herself of the goods and services 

offered therein.

7. Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and, 

pursuant to Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013), is a "tester" 

for the purpose of asserting his civil rights, monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether laces 

of public accommodation, including online reservation systems for places of lodging, are in 

compliance with the ADA.

8. Defendant, THE ALPHA HOUSE INC., transacts business in the State of Florida 

and within this judicial district through its website. Defendant is the owner and operator of the M 

BOUTIQUE HOTEL located at 6945 Abbott Ave, Miami Beach, FL 33141 and the 

corresponding reservation system found on its website and has control over its content. It also 

has control over the content listed in any third-party reservation providers.

VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITES ACT AND CLAIM FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA, explaining that its purpose was to 

provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against 

individuals with disabilities and to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards 

addressing such discrimination, invoking the sweep of congressional authority in order to 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 13

address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities to ensure 

that the Federal government plays a central role in enforcing the standards set by the ADA. 42 

U.S.C. § 12101(b)(l) - (4). 

10. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on September 15, 2010, the

Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (“DOJ”), published revised regulations for 

Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Public accommodations, including 

places of lodging were required to conform to these revised regulations on or before March 15, 

2012.

11. On March 15, 2012, the revised regulations implementing Title III of the ADA

took effect, imposing significant new obligations on inns, motels, hotels and other “places of 

lodging.” 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(l) provides that: 

Reservations made by places of lodging. A public accommodation that owns, 

leases (or leases to), or operates a place of lodging shall, with respect to 

reservations made by any means, including by telephone, in-person, or through a 

third party – 

(i) Modify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that individuals 

with disabilities can make reservations for accessible guest rooms during 

the same hours and in the same manner as individuals who do not need 

accessible rooms; 

(ii) Identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms 

offered through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably 

permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a 

given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs; 

(iii) Ensure that accessible guest rooms are held for use by individuals 

with disabilities until all other guest rooms of that type have been rented 

and the accessible room requested is the only remaining room of that type; 

(iv) Reserve, upon request, accessible guest rooms or specific types of 

guest rooms and ensure that the guest rooms requested are blocked and 

removed from all reservations systems; and 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 4 of 13
Page 5 of 13

(v) Guarantee that the specific accessible guest room reserved through its 

reservations service is held for the reserving customer, regardless of 

whether a specific room is held in response to reservations made by 

others. 

12. In promulgating the new requirements, the Department of Justice made clear that 

individuals with disabilities should be able to reserve hotel rooms with the same efficiency, 

immediacy, and convenience as those who do not need accessible guestrooms. 28 C.F.R. Part 

36, Appx. A. 

13. Hotels (and motels) are required to identify and describe all accessible features in 

the hotel and guestrooms; “[t]his requirement is essential to ensure individuals with disabilities 

receive information they need to benefit from the services offered by the place of lodging.” 28 

C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A. Moreover, “a public accommodation’s designation of a guestroom as 

“accessible” does not ensure necessarily that the room complies with all of the 1991 Standards.” 

28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A. Labeling a guestroom as “accessible” or “ADA” is not sufficient.

14. In addition, hotel rooms that are in full compliance with current standards may 

differ, and individuals with disabilities must be able to ascertain which features – in new and 

existing facilities – are included in the hotel’s accessible guest rooms. For example, under certain 

circumstances, an accessible hotel bathroom may meet accessibility requirements with either a 

bathtub or a roll in shower. The presence or absence of particular accessible features such as 

these may mean the difference between a room that is usable by a particular person with a 

disability and one that is not. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A. Accordingly, Defendant is required to 

set forth specific accessible features and not merely recite that a guestroom is “accessible” or 

“ADA” or list accessibility features that may (or may not) be offered within a particular room. 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 5 of 13
Page 6 of 13

15. For hotels in buildings constructed after the effective date of the 1991 Standards, 

it is sufficient to advise that the hotel itself is fully ADA compliant, and for each accessible 

guestroom, to specify the room type, the type of accessible bathing facility in the room, and the

communications features in the room. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A. 

16. However, for hotels in buildings constructed prior to the 1991 Standards,

information about the hotel should include, at a minimum information about accessible entrances 

to the hotel, the path of travel to guest check-in and other essential services, and the accessible 

route to the accessible room or rooms. In addition to the room information described above, 

these hotels should provide information about important features that do not comply with the 

1991 Standards. For example, if the door to the “accessible” room or bathroom is narrower than 

required, this information should be included (e.g., door to guest room measures 30 inches clear). 

[emphasis added]. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A. 

17. The Hotel is a place of public accommodation that owns and/or leases and 

operates a place of lodging pursuant to the ADA. The Hotel is in a building constructed prior to 

the 1991 Standards. 

18. The Website (and all other online reservation platforms used by the Hotel) allow 

reservations for the Hotel to be taken online. The Defendant has control over information 

provided to the public about the Hotel through the Website and/or other online platforms. 

19. It is important to Plaintiff that any hotel at which he researches is accessible. 

Plaintiff frequently researches and assesses the accessible features and guestrooms of hotels 

online.

20. While in this District, his home district, Plaintiff visited the Website to learn 

about accessible features of Defendant’s Hotel, to assess whether the Hotel is accessible, and to

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 6 of 13
Page 7 of 13

see if he could reserve an accessible room at the Hotel online. Upon his visit, Plaintiff discovered 

that the Website did not provide her with any meaningful accessibility information at all or allow 

for the reservation of an accessible room (with known accessibility features). The Website 

provided information and took reservations related to non-accessible guestrooms, but not 

accessible guestrooms. 

21. The Website homepage and rooms page do not list adequate ADA accessibility 

information whatsoever or provide any way to reserve ADA accessible rooms or suites.2

22. The Website also has inadequate accessibility information concerning common 

areas and hotel amenities. There is a page entitled amenities listing amenities of the Hotel, not 

including any accessibility features or information. There is no indication at any point no that the 

Hotel common areas meet the 1991 Standards, or alternatively (as applicable): 

a. Whether the public entrance to the Hotel complies with the 1991 

Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not comply, so that 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is accessible 

to them; 

b. Whether the registration desk at the Hotel complies with the 1991 

Standards, and if not, the ways in which it does not comply, so that 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is accessible 

to them; 

c. Whether restaurant or other food service areas at the Hotel comply with 

the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which they do not comply, so 

2 Defendant is cautioned against deleting or destroying any version of the Website as it existed on the date of this 

filing, inasmuch as the same may constitute evidence in this lawsuit. All changes and edits should be carefully 

saved, catalogued, and produced.

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 13

that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is 

accessible to them;

d. Whether any parking facilities, lots, or other parking accommodations at 

the Hotel comply with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in which 

they do not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

e. Whether the swimming pool (if any) complies with the 1991 Standards, 

and if not, the ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and 

others similarly situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

f. Whether the business center complies with the 1991 Standards, and if not, 

the ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

g. Whether the meeting/ballroom areas comply with the 1991 Standards, and 

if not, the ways in which they do not comply, so that Plaintiff and others 

similarly situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

h. Whether the route from the public entrance to the registration desk is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

i. Whether the route from the registration desk to the accessible rooms is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 8 of 13
Page 9 of 13

j. Whether the route from the public entrance to the business center is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

k. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the business center is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

l. Whether the route from the public entrance to the pool (if any) is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

m. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the pool (if any) is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

n. Whether the route from the public entrance to the fitness center is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

o. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the fitness center is 

accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the ways in 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 13

which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated can 

evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

p. Whether the route from the public entrance to the restaurant or food 

service areas is accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if 

not, the ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others 

similarly situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them; q. Whether 

the route from the accessible guestrooms to the restaurant or food service 

areas is accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the 

ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

r. Whether the route from the public entrance to the conference/ballroom 

space is accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the 

ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

s. Whether the route from the accessible guestrooms to the meeting/ballroom 

space is accessible in compliance with the 1991 Standards, and if not, the 

ways in which it does not comply, so that Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated can evaluate whether it is accessible to them; 

23. This is not intended to be an exclusive list, and Plaintiff brings this action to 

remediate all violations of the ADAAG found to exist upon the Website, and upon all online 

reservation platforms used by the Hotel. 

24. In addition to the list above, upon information and belief, Defendant may not 

effectively (i) ensure that accessible guest rooms are held for use by individuals with disabilities 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13

until all other guest rooms of that type have been rented and the accessible room requested is the 

only remaining room of that type; (ii) reserve, upon request, accessible guest rooms or specific

types of guest rooms and ensure that the guest rooms requested are blocked and removed from 

all reservations systems; or (iii) guarantee that the specific accessible guest room reserved 

through its reservations service is held for the reserving customer, regardless of whether a 

specific room is held in response to reservations made by others. Discovery is required on these 

issues.

25. Plaintiff will visit the Website again upon the Defendant’s compliance with the 

laws and regulations specified herein, in order learn about the accessible (and inaccessible) 

features of the Hotel, learn about the accessible (and inaccessible) features of Hotel guestrooms, 

assess the extent to which the hotels meet each of his specific accessibility needs, and determine 

whether he can reserve an accessible guestroom. If the Hotel is the most suited to his 

accessibility needs as compared to other suitable hotels reviewed online. 

26. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and all other mobility-impaired 

individuals, by denying full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and accommodations offered on the Websites, due to the continuing ADA 

and ADAAG violations as set forth above. Defendant has had over eight (8) years to bring the 

Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) into compliance with the 

ADAAG revisions, but has failed or refused to do so. 

27. Modifying the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) to 

comply with the ADA and ADAAG is accomplishable without undue burden or expense and is 

readily achievable. But in any event, upon information and belief, the Website has been altered, 

updated, and edited, after 2010, but not in a manner compliant with 2010 ADAAG standards. 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 11 of 13
Page 12 of 13

28. Defendant will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and all other disabled 

individuals who access the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) unless 

and until Defendant modifies the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) 

to set forth all required information, as set forth above. 

29. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law and are suffering irreparable harm, 

and Plaintiff reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer this harm unless and until 

Defendant is required to correct the ADA violations found upon the Websites (and other online 

reservation platforms, as applicable), and to maintain the Websites (and other online reservation

platforms, as applicable), inclusive of the online reservation system, and accompanying policies 

and procedures, in a manner that is consistent with and compliant with ADA and ADAAG 

requirements. 

30. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188(a) this Court has authority to grant injunctive relief 

to Plaintiff, including an Order that compels Defendant to enact policies that are consistent with 

the ADA and its remedial purposes, and to alter and maintain its Website (and other online 

reservation platforms, as applicable), and all online reservation systems, in accordance with the 

requirements set forth within the 2010 Standards, 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(l).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CINDY GOLDSTEIN, respectfully requests that this Court 

enter judgment against Defendant, and in his favor, as follows: 

a. A declaration that the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as 

applicable) is owned, leased, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant is 

in violation of the ADA; 

b. Temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from 

continuing its discriminatory practices, including the requirement that 

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 13

Defendant permanently implement policies, practices, procedures, 

including online content, consistent with the mandates of the 2010 

ADAAG Standards on its Website (and other online reservation platforms, 

as applicable); 

c. Temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from 

maintaining or controlling content on any website through which it is 

offering online reservations for any hotel that it owns or operates, unless 

such website and online reservation system fully comply with 28 C.F.R. 

§36.302(e)(l); 

d. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, disbursements and other 

expenses associated with this action, in favor of Plaintiff; 

e. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just, necessary and 

appropriate under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Lauren N. Wassenberg

Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. (FBN: 34083)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lauren N. Wassernberg & Associates, P.A.

1825 NW Corporate Blvd, Ste. 110

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Ph: 561-571-0646

WassenbergL@gmail.com

Case 1:20-cv-23312-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 13 of 13