1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.:

ERIC ROGERS

Plaintiff,

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

REVENUE PROPERTIES LANTANA INC.

Defendant.

/

 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ERIC ROGERS (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby 

files this Complaint and sues REVENUE PROPERTIES LANTANA INC. (referred to as 

“Defendant”) as a for profit business entity, for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, 

expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq., and the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and alleges as 

follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under Title 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq., based on 

Defendant’s violations of Title III of the ADA. See also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, as well as the 2010 

ADA Standards.

2. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(B) and Internal 

Operating Procedures for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 1 of 16
2

that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, ERIC ROGERS is sui juris and is a resident of the State of Florida.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and/or

lessor of the Real Property, which is subject to this suit, and is located at 5970 Jog Rd. Lake 

Worth, FL (“Premises”), and is the owner of the improvements where Premises is located.

5. Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the 

state of Florida.

6. Plaintiff is an individual with numerous disabilities and is a bilateral amputee 

which results in absolutely no use of the legs and requires him to use and remain in a wheelchair. 

The above listed disability and symptoms cause sudden onsets of severe pain and substantially 

limit Plaintiff’s major life activities. At the time of Plaintiff’s visit to the Premises in August of

2022 (and prior to instituting this action), Plaintiff suffered from a “qualified disability” under 

the ADA, and required the use of fully accessible parking spaces and fully accessible paths of 

travel throughout the facility. Plaintiff personally visited the Premises, but was denied full and

equal access and full and equal enjoyment of the facilities and amenities within the Premises, 

even though he would be classified as a “bona fide patron”.

7. Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, will absolutely return to the Premises and 

avail himself of the services offered when Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the 

policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities.

8. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 2 of 16
3

aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, 

and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination.

9. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a 

result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the 

requirements of the ADA.

10. Plaintiff would like to be able to be a patron of the Premises in the future and be 

able to enjoy the goods and services that are available to the able-bodied public, but is currently 

precluded from doing so as a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct as described herein. 

Plaintiff will continue to be precluded from using the Premises until corrective measures are 

taken at the Premises to eliminate the discrimination against persons with physical disabilities.

11. Completely independent of the personal desire to have access to this place of 

public accommodation free of illegal barriers to access, Plaintiff also acts as a “tester” for the 

purpose of discovering, encountering and engaging discrimination against the disabled in public 

accommodations. When acting as a “tester”, Plaintiff employs a routine practice. Plaintiff

personally visits the public accommodation; engages all of the barriers to access, or at least of 

those that Plaintiff is able to access; tests all of those barriers to access to determine whether and 

the extent to which they are illegal barriers to access; proceeds with legal action to enjoin

such discrimination; and subsequently returns to Premises to verify its compliance or noncompliance with the ADA and to otherwise use the public accommodation as members of the 

able-bodied community are able to do. Independent of other subsequent visits, Plaintiff also 

intends to visit the Premises regularly to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, 

and its maintenance of the accessible features of Premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in 

Plaintiff’s individual capacity and as a “tester”, visited Premises, encountered barriers to access 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 3 of 16
4

at Premises, and engaged and tested those barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will 

continue to suffer such harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access and the ADA 

violations set forth herein. It is Plaintiff’s belief that said violations will not be corrected without 

Court intervention, and thus Plaintiff will suffer legal harm and injury in the near future.

12. Plaintiff, in his capacity as a tester, will absolutely return to the Premises when 

Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the policies and practices to accommodate 

individuals who have physical disabilities to confirm said modifications have been completed 

in accordance with the requirements of the ADA.

VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

13. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 12 

above as if fully stated herein.

14. 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 (1.5) 

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 Defendant(s) have ten (10) or fewer 

employees and gross receipts of $500,000.00 or less. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182; 28 C.F.R. § 

36.508(a).

15. Congress found, among other things, that:

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

and this number shall increase as the population continues to grow older;

b. 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 4 of 16
5

serious attention;

c. 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;

d. 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,

e. 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 our country is justifiably famous, and 

accosts the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting 

from dependency and non-productivity.

Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA was to:

f. provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

g. provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities; and

h. invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the 

fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 5 of 16
6

areas of discrimination faced on a daily basis by people with disabilities.

U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

17. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(7), 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 and the 2010 ADA

Standards, Defendant’s Premises is a place of public accommodation covered by the ADA by the 

fact it provides services to the general public and must be in compliance therewith.

18. Defendant has discriminated and continues to discriminate against 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 located at the Premises, 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).

19. Plaintiff has visited Premises, and has been denied full and safe equal access to 

the facilities and therefore suffered an injury in fact.

20. Plaintiff would like to return and enjoy the goods and/or services at Premises on 

a spontaneous, full and equal basis. However, Plaintiff is precluded from doing so by the 

Defendant’s failure and refusal to provide disabled persons with full and equal access to its

facilities. Therefore, Plaintiff continues to suffer from discrimination and injury due to the architectural 

barriers that are in violation of the ADA.

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

Department of Justice, Officer of the Attorney General promulgated Federal Regulations to 

implement the requirements of the ADA. See 28 C.F.R. § 36 and its successor the 2010 ADA 

Standards ADA Accessibility guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. § 36, 

under which said Department may obtain civil penalties of up to $55,000.00 for the first violation 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 6 of 16
7

and $110,000.00 for and subsequent violation.

22. Based on a preliminary inspection of the Premises, Defendants are in violation of

42 USC § 12182 et. seq. and the 2010 American Disabilities Act Standards et. seq., and is 

discriminating against Plaintiff as a result of but not limited to, inter alia, the following specific

violations:

a. Inside Chili’s, the bar is lacking any portion of the counter that has a maximum height 

of maximum height of 34 (thirty-four) inches from the finished floor in violation of 

section 902.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. In addition, there are is no seating within 

reasonable proximity to the bar offering dining surfaces provided for consumption of 

food or drink which complies with section 902.2 requiring appropriate knee and toe 

clearance complying with 306 positioned for a forward approach, in violation of section 

226.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

the Plaintiff to eat or drink in this unique area of the restaurant as individuals in 

wheelchairs are at a lower height due to their disability and when a eating surface is 

too high, they are unable to enjoy their food and drink at this location.

b. In front of Chili’s, due to an inadequate policy of parking lot maintenance or a lack 

thereof, there are three accessible parking spaces that are not adequately marked so as 

to gauge the width of accessible parking spaces and the presence of an access aisle and 

is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier 

to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking space and 

may cause other vehicles to unknowingly park in the accessible parking space 

decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 7 of 16
8

c. Across the vehicular way from the Publix exit door, due to the presence of a pothole, 

the ground surfaces of the access aisle to the accessible parking space have vertical 

rises in excess of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have 

broken or unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section 502.4 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for 

Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

d. Across the vehicular way from Unit 5970D, due to an inadequate policy of parking lot 

maintenance or a lack thereof, the accessible parking space is not adequately marked 

so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces and the presence of 

an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an 

accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to unknowingly park in the 

accessible parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

e. Across the vehicular way from Unit 5970A, due to an inadequate policy of parking lot 

maintenance or a lack thereof, the accessible parking space is not adequately marked 

so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces and the presence of 

an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an 

accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to unknowingly park in the 

accessible parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

f. Across the vehicular way from Unit 5970A, the access aisle to the accessible parking 

space has a cross slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards and is not level. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 8 of 16
9

difficult for Plaintiff to enter and exit the vehicle as a level surface is needed so the 

wheelchair does not tip over and injure Plaintiff as excessive cross-slopes increases the 

likelihood of Plaintiff’s wheelchair tipping over on its side and injuring Plaintiff.

g. Across the vehicular way from Unit 5970A, the access aisle adjacent to the accessible 

parking space has a slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards and are not level. This barrier to access would make it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property as 

Plaintiff’s wheelchair may roll down the slope while entering or exiting the vehicle.

h. Across the vehicular way from Dollar Tree, due to an inadequate policy of parking lot 

maintenance or a lack thereof, the accessible parking space is not adequately marked 

so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces and the presence of 

an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an 

accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to unknowingly park in the 

accessible parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

i. Across the vehicular way from Dollar Tree, the access aisle to the accessible parking 

space has a cross slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards and is not level. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and 

difficult for Plaintiff to enter and exit the vehicle as a level surface is needed so the 

wheelchair does not tip over and injure Plaintiff as excessive cross-slopes increases the 

likelihood of Plaintiff’s wheelchair tipping over on its side and injuring Plaintiff.

j. Across the vehicular way from Dollar Tree, the access aisle adjacent to the accessible 

parking space has a slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 9 of 16
10

ADAAG standards and are not level. This barrier to access would make it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property as 

Plaintiff’s wheelchair may roll down the slope while entering or exiting the vehicle.

k. Across the vehicular way from Unit 8788, due to an inadequate policy of parking lot 

maintenance or a lack thereof, the accessible parking space is not adequately marked 

so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces and the presence of 

an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an 

accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to unknowingly park in the 

accessible parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

l. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot lumber entrance, due to an inadequate 

policy of parking lot maintenance or a lack thereof, the accessible parking space is not 

adequately marked so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces 

and the presence of an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to 

locate an accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to unknowingly park 

in the accessible parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

m. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot entrance, due to an inadequate policy 

of parking lot maintenance or a lack thereof, the accessible parking space is not 

adequately marked so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces 

and the presence of an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 10 of 16
11

locate an accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to unknowingly park 

in the accessible parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

n. Across the vehicular way from Home Depot, there is one accessible parking space as 

indicated by a clear handicap symbol painted on the ground surface that does not have 

a marked access aisle in violation of section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access makes it nearly impossible for an individual in a wheelchair to 

enter and exit their vehicle at this accessible parking space due to the close presence of 

parked vehicles on either side of the accessible parking space not providing enough 

room for the wheelchair, this eliminates the accessible route from this accessible 

parking space.

o. Across the vehicular way from Home Depot, there is one accessible parking space with 

a handicap symbol painted on the ground surfaces that is missing an identification sign 

in violation of section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking space.

p. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot exit, the accessible parking space is 

missing an identification sign in violation of section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an 

accessible parking space.

q. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot exit, due to an inadequate policy of 

parking lot maintenance or a lack thereof, the accessible parking space is not adequately 

marked so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces and the 

presence of an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 11 of 16
12

an accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to unknowingly park in the 

accessible parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

r. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot exit, the accessible parking space has 

a cross slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards and is not level. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult 

for Plaintiff to enter and exit the vehicle as a level surface is needed so the wheelchair 

does not tip over and injure Plaintiff as excessive cross-slopes increases the likelihood 

of Plaintiff’s wheelchair tipping over on its side and injuring Plaintiff.

s. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot nursery entrance, due to a failure to 

enact a policy of proper grounds maintenance, there is a pot hole and gravel in the 

accessible parking space. As a result, the ground surfaces of the accessible space have 

vertical rises in excess of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, 

have broken or unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section 502.4, 302 

and 303 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

t. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot nursery sign, the accessible parking 

space has a vertical rise in excess of 1⁄4 inch and is in violation of Sections 303.2 and 

502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property as 

well as make it difficult for Plaintiff to travel to the public accommodations offered at 

the Property.

u. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot nursery sign, due to an inadequate 

policy of parking lot maintenance or a lack thereof, at least one accessible parking space 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 12 of 16
13

is not adequately marked so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking 

spaces and the presence of an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to 

unknowingly park in the accessible parking space decreasing the available width to 

Plaintiff.

v. Across the vehicular way from the Home Depot nursery sign, due to a failure to 

maintain the foliage on the Property, the branches of the trees and/or landscaping over 

the access aisle provided a vertical clearance that is less than the 80 (eighty) inches 

required by Section 307.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to traverse the accessible routes of the 

Property. 307.4 Vertical Clearance. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2030 mm) 

high minimum. 

w. There are no accessible parking spaces on the Property that have a sign designating an 

accessible parking space as “Van Accessible” in violation of section 208.2.4 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards and section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier 

to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate a van accessible parking space. 

Defendant fails to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that all facilities are 

readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

CHILI’S RESTROOMS

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 13 of 16
14

a. The accessible toilet stall door is not self-closing and violates section 604.8.2.1 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for the Plaintiff 

and/or any disabled individual to safely and privately utilize the restroom facilities.

PUBLIX RESTROOMS

a. The accessible toilet stall door is not self-closing and violates section 604.8.2.1 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for the Plaintiff 

and/or any disabled individual to safely and privately utilize the restroom facilities.

23. To the best of Plaintiff’s belief and knowledge, Defendant has failed to eliminate 

the specific violations set forth in paragraph 22 herein.

24. Although Defendant is charged with having knowledge of the violations, 

Defendant may not have actual knowledge of said violations until this Complaint makes 

Defendant aware of same.

25. 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.

26. As the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises, Defendants are required 

to comply with the ADA. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, existed and were 

occupied prior to January 26, 1992, the owner, lessor, lessee or operator has been under a 

continuing obligation to remove architectural barriers at the Premises where removal was readily 

achievable, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.402.

27. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, were constructed for occupancy 

after January 26, 1993 the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises was under an 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 14 of 16
15

obligation to design and construct such Premises such that it is readily accessible to and usable 

by individuals with disabilities, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.401.

28. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of 

this action. Plaintiff is entitled to have his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid 

by Defendant, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

29. All of the above violations are readily achievable to modify in order to bring 

Premises or the Facility/Property into compliance with the ADA.

30. In instance(s) where the 2010 ADAAG standard does not apply, the 1991 

ADAAG standard applies and all of the violations listed in paragraph 22 herein can be applied 

to the 1991 ADAAG standards.

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

Plaintiff’s injunctive relief, including an order to alter the subject facility to make them readily

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and 

closing the Subject Facility until the requisite modifications are completed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and requests the 

following injunctive and declaratory relief:

1. That this Court declares that Premises owned, operated and/or controlled by 

Defendants are in violation of the ADA;

2. That this Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to alter their facilities to 

make them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full 

extent required by Title III of the ADA;

3. That this Court enter an Order directing the Defendants to evaluate and neutralize 

their policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such 

reasonable time so as to allow the Defendants to undertake and complete 

corrective procedures to Premises;

4. That this Court award reasonable attorney’s fees, all costs (including, but not 

limited to the court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of suit to the 

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 15 of 16
16

Plaintiff; and,

5. That this Court award such other and further relief as it may deem necessary, just 

and proper.

Dated: August 29, 2022

/ s / A l b e r t o R . L e al . 

Alberto R. Leal, Esq., P.A.

Florida Bar No.: 1002345

8927 Hypoluxo Rd. #157

Lake Worth, FL 33467

Phone: 954-637-1868

E-Mail: albertolealesq@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81324-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 16 of 16