UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, Individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TPG BOCA RATON, LLC, 

a Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

Case No.

COMPLAINT

Injunctive Relief Demanded

Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, Individually, on his behalf and on behalf of all 

other mobility impaired individuals similarly situated, (sometimes referred to as “Plaintiff”), 

hereby sues the Defendant, TPG BOCA RATON, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, 

(herein sometimes referred to as “Defendant”), for Injunctive Relief, and attorney’s fees, 

litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 12181,

et seq. (“ADA”).

1. Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, is an individual residing in Fenwick, MI, 

in the County of Montcalm. 

2. Defendant’s property, the Renaissance Boca Raton Hotel, is located at 2000 NW 

19th Street, Boca Raton, FL 33431, in the County of Palm Beach.

3. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because venue lies in 

the judicial district of the property situs. 

4. The Defendant's property is located in and does business within this judicial 

district.

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 1 of 10
2

5. Pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 and 28 USC § 1343, this Court has been given 

original jurisdiction over actions which arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 12181, et seq. See also, 28 USC § 2201 and § 2202.

6. Rudolph Betancourt is a Michigan resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an 

individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. 

7. Mr. Betancourt is a double amputee who uses either prosthetic devices and/or a 

wheelchair for mobility. 

8. Mr. Betancourt regularly drives to South Florida from Michigan, where he 

resides. While driving from Michigan to South Florida, Mr. Betancourt regularly visits Boca 

Raton along his route to South Florida for vacations and to enjoy the area’s special beauty, 

including the shops and cultural venues and events offered generally. He also enjoys Boca 

Raton’s beautiful beaches. He has friends and relatives in the nearby areas. His cousin, who he 

wants to visit, lives nearby and he also has many relatives and friends (including former 

Marines) in the Miami and Fort Lauderdale areas.

9. Mr. Betancourt stayed as a hotel guest at the subject hotel on July 24, 2022 which 

visit forms the basis of this lawsuit. 

10. Mr. Betancourt plans to return to the subject hotel from January 20 through 

January 21, 2023, providing it is made accessible for his use to avail himself of the goods and 

services at the property, and to confirm the property is brought into compliance with the ADA. 

11. Mr. Betancourt intends to continue to return to the South Florida area on a regular 

basis, the Palm Beach area in particular. 

12. The barriers to access at the subject property have endangered his safety.

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

accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 2 of 10
3

36.201(a) and 36.104. 

14. Defendant is responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. 

15. The place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, leases or 

leases to is known as the Renaissance Boca Raton Hotel, and is located at 2000 NW 19th Street, 

Boca Raton, FL 33431..

16. Rudolph Betancourt has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of 

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

as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations in this Complaint. 

17. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to 

discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. 

18. Mr. Betancourt desires to visit The Renaissance Boca Raton Hotel, not only to 

avail himself of the goods and services available at the property, but to assure himself that the 

property is in compliance with the ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full 

and equal enjoyment of the property without fear of discrimination.

19. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, by denying him access to, 

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

accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by 42 USC § 12182 et seq.

20. The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the 

Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by January 26, 

1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

$500,000 or less). 

21. A preliminary inspection of The Renaissance Boca Raton Hotel has shown that 

violations exist.

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 3 of 10
4

Accessible Parking 

a. The passenger loading zone does not provide a marked access aisle 

adjacent to the vehicle pull-up space making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in 

violation of section 503.3.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

Accessible Route

b. The hotel does not provide an accessible route within site from the 

accessible parking spaces to the main entrance making it difficult for the plaintiff to 

traverse, in violation of section 206.2.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

c. The accessible route to the main entrance has vertical changes in level that 

exceed the maximum requirement of 1⁄4 inch making it difficult for the plaintiff to 

traverse, in violation of section 303.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

d. The walkway does not provide compliant clear width of 36 inches on the 

accessible route to the main entrance as required due to the obstruction of the bench and 

the planter making it difficult for the plaintiff to traverse, in violation of section 403.5.1 

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

Common Lobby Area

e. The lowered section of the service counter top does not extend the same 

depth as the service counter top making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation 

of section 904.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

f. The service counter exceeds the maximum height requirement of 36 

inches making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 308.2.1 and 

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

Fitness Center

g. The fitness center entrance door’s do not provide the international symbol 

of accessibility (ISA) making it difficult for the plaintiff to identify as an accessible 

entrance, in violation of section 703.7.2.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution 

is readily achievable. 

h. The fitness center’s entrance door hardware requires tight grasping and 

pinching to operate making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 

309.4 and 404.2.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

i. The hand santizer dispenser exceeds the maximum height requirement of 

48 inches above the finish floor to the operable mechanism making it difficult for the 

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 4 of 10
5

plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 308.2.1 and 309.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

Accessible Men’s Public Restroom

j. The restrooms directional and informational signage does not provide 

braille as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 

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

k. The lavatory does not provide knee clearance making it difficult for the 

plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 306.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

l. The toilet compartment stall door is not self-closing as required making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

m. The door swings into the clear floor space for an approach to the lavatory 

making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 305.3, 305.5, and 

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

Accessible Guestrooms

n. The Hotel does not provide the required amount of compliant accessible

guest rooms and the accessible rooms are not dispersed among the various classes of 

accommodations, in violation of section 224.2 of the Standards.

Accessible Guestroom 531

o. The guestroom signage does not contain the International Symbol of 

Accessibility (ISA) and braille making it difficult for the plaintiff to identify, in violation 

of Sections 216.2, 703.1, 703.2, 703.3, 703.5 and 703.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

p. The security latch exceeds the maximum height requirement of 48 inches 

above the finish floor making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 

308.2.1 and 309.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

q. The door does not provide 18 inches of latch side maneuvering clearance 

parallel to the doorway making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of 

section 404.2.4.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

r. The toilet paper dispenser is not in the compliant location 7 inches 

minimum and 9 inches maximum in front of the toilet to the centerline of the dispenser 

making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 604.7 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 5 of 10
6

s. The lavatory does not provide knee and toe clearance as required making 

it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 306.2, 306.3, and 606.2 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

t. The plainitff had to use caution when utilizng the lavatory due to the drain 

pipe and water supply lines being exposed and in need of insulation, in villation of 

section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

u. The toilet’s missing the rear wall grab bar and side wall grab bar making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 604.5.1 and 604.5.2 of section 

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

v. The shower curb exceeds the maximum vertical change in level 

requirement of 1⁄4 inch making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 

303.2 of section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

w. The standard roll-in type shower compartment is missing grab bars in the 

compliant locations on the walls making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation 

of section 608.3.2 of section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

x. The standard roll-in type shower compartment does not provide a 

compliant handheld shower spray unit with an on/off control with a non-positive shut-off 

as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, inv iolation of section 608.6 of 

section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

y. The controls and shower spray unit are not in the compliant location on 

the back wall of the standard roll-in type shower compartment making it difficult for the 

plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 608.5.2 of section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

z. The standard roll-in type shower compartment does not provide a folding 

seat in the compliant location as required in transient lodging making it difficult for the 

plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 608.4 of section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

aa. The hanger bar and iron in the closet exceeds the maximum height of 48 

inches above the finish floor making it difficult for the plaintiff to reach, in violation of 

sections 308.2.1 and 309.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

bb. The shelves exceed 48 inches above the finish floor making it difficult for 

the plaintiff to reach, in violation of sections 308.2.2 and 309.3 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 6 of 10
7

cc. The mini fridge is obstructing the clear floor space for an approach to the 

coffee maker and cups on the counter and shelf making it difficult for the plaintiff to 

utilize, in violation of sections 305.3 and 305.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

Maintenance

dd. The accessible features of the facility are not maintained, creating barriers 

to access for the Plaintiff, as set forth herein, in violation of 28 CFR §36.211.

Policies and Procedures 

ee. Failure to maintain policies to ensure the facility remains accessible at all 

times. 

22. All of the foregoing cited violations are violations of both the 1991 Americans 

with Disabilities Act Guidelines (ADAAG) and the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design, as 

adopted by the Department of Justice.

23. The discriminatory violations described in Paragraph 21. above are not an 

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

Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the 

discriminatory acts violating the ADA and all of the barriers to access. The Plaintiff and all 

other individuals similarly situated have been denied access to, and have been denied the benefits 

of services, programs and activities of the Defendant’s buildings and its facilities, and have 

otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the Defendant because of the Defendant’s 

ADA violations, as set forth above. 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 non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

24. Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying them access to full 

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 7 of 10
8

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 USC § 12181, et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302, et seq. Furthermore, the Defendant continues to 

discriminate against the 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.

25. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm. 

Considering the balance of hardships between the Plaintiff and Defendant, a remedy in equity is 

warranted. Furthermore, the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. 

26. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled to recover attorney’s 

fees, costs and litigation expenses from the Defendant pursuant to 42 USC § 12205 and 

28 CFR 36.505.

27. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the 

physically disabled, when such removal is readily achievable for its place of public 

accommodation that has existed prior to January 26, 1992, 28 CFR 36.304(a); in the alternative, 

if there has been an alteration to Defendant’s place of public accommodation since January 26, 

1992, then the Defendant is required to ensure to the maximum extent feasible, that the altered 

portions of the facility are readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities, 

including individuals who use wheelchairs, 28 CFR 36.402; and finally, if the Defendant’s 

facility is one which was designed and constructed for first occupancy subsequent to January 26, 

1993, as defined in 28 CFR 36.401, then the Defendant’s facility must be readily accessible to 

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 8 of 10
9

and useable by individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA. 

28. 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 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.

29. Pursuant to 42 USC § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant 

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to require the Defendant to alter the The 

Renaissance Boca Raton Hotel to make those facilities readily accessible and useable to the 

Plaintiff and all other persons with disabilities as defined by the ADA; or by closing the facility 

until such time as the Defendant cures its violations of the ADA.

30. A PACER search has shown that the following prior ADA lawsuits were filed:

a. Cohan v. TPG Boca Raton, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80964-RLR, filed on 

July 14, 2015;

b. Cohan v. TPG Boca Raton, LLC, Case No. 9:18-cv-81523-DMM, filed on 

November 6, 2018; and

c. Cohan v. TPG Boca Raton, LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-82343-AHS, filed on 

December 18, 2020.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

A. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant at the 

commencement of the subject lawsuit is in violation of Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 12181 et seq.

B. Injunctive relief against the Defendant, including an order to make all readily 

achievable alterations to the facility; or to make such facility readily accessible to and useable by 

individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA; and to require the Defendant to 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 9 of 10
10

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.

C. An award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 USC 

§ 12205.

D. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

E. The Order shall further require the Defendant to maintain the required assessable 

features on an ongoing basis, and to require the institution of a policy that requires Defendant to 

maintain its accessible features on an ongoing basis.

Dated: August 30, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John P. Fuller

John P. Fuller, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0276847

FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502

North Miami, FL 33181

(305) 891-5199

(305) 893-9505 – Facsimile

jpf@fullerfuller.com

jpfuller17@gmail.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Rudolph Betancourt

Case 9:22-cv-81332-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 10 of 10