UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

JASMIN HOSPITALITY, INC.,

 Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by his undersigned, 

hereby files this Complaint and sues Defendant, JASMIN HOSPITALITY, INC. (hereinafter 

“Defendant”), for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

12181, et seq., (hereinafter the “A.D.A”), the ADA’s Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36 

(hereinafter the “ADAAG”), and the Florida Building Code.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C., §§1331 

and 1343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 12181. et seq., based upon Defendants’

violations of Title III of the ADA (see also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202). 

2. The subject property is a hotel located on or about 950 SE Federal Hwy., Stuart, 

FL 34994 (hereinafter “Subject Premises”).

3. All events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the State of Florida. Venue is 

proper in this Court as the premises are located in the Southern District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, is currently a resident of Fenwick, 

Michigan in the County of Montcalm, is sui juris, and is a qualified individual under the ADA

and the FACBC.

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 1 of 11
5. Plaintiff is a double leg amputee who uses prosthetic devices or a wheelchair to 

ambulate, a Marine Corps veteran with several friends, family, and colleagues in South Florida 

including a son who is a minor league baseball athlete in South Florida who he frequently visits. 

Additionally, Plaintiff enjoys the South Florida weather and the multiple sporting events, 

festivals, and events that occur throughout South Florida.

6. Despite the physical limitations to which he is subjected as a result of his 

disability, Plaintiff continues to lead a full life, frequently travels, dines out, and is also an 

actively social and independent individual.

7. Defendant, JASMIN HOSPITALITY, INC., is a Florida Profit Corporation which 

is authorized to and does transact business in the State of Florida and within this judicial district.

8. Pursuant to the Martin County Property Appraiser’s Office, Defendant, JASMIN 

HOSPITALITY, INC., is the owner and/or operator/manager of the real property located on or 

950 SE Federal Hwy., Stuart, FL 34994 (hereinafter the “Subject Premises”). This is the 

building where the Subject Premises is located.

9. According to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, the 

Defendant, JASMIN HOSPITALITY, INC., was licensed on September 13, 2011 to provide 

Hotel Accommodations and occupies 950 SE Federal Hwy., Stuart, FL 34994 as a hotel known 

as “QUALITY INN STUART” a/k/a “QUALITY INN – STUART”.

10. The Subject Premises is owned and/or operated by the Defendants and is a public 

accommodation required by law to comply with the ADA and ADAAG.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIM

11. Plaintiff visited the Subject Premises on or about July 25, 2022 after making a 

reservation to stay in an allegedly accessible guest room at the Subject Premises while visiting 

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 2 of 11
friends and family in South Florida, and accessed to the extent possible, or attempted to access 

the Subject Premises and specific areas of the Subject Premises as described herein.

12. While visiting the Subject Premises, Plaintiff personally encountered or observed

several barriers to access in violation of the ADA and ADAAG as detailed further herein at 

Paragraph 16. As a result, Plaintiff has been denied access to the Subject Premises and full and 

equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered therein because of his disability and will 

continue to be denied such access as a result of those barriers.

13. Said barriers to access at the Subject Premises endanger the safety of Plaintiff and 

all other individuals with disabilities, deny Plaintiff and others with disabilities equal access to

the Subject Premises as to that of able-bodied persons, and causes social embarrassment due to 

the difficulties encountering such barriers to access—a social embarrassment that would not

occur if the Subject Premises was in compliance with the ADA and ADAAG.

14. In encountering the barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and suffering the 

resulting discrimination, endangerment, and embarrassment—the Plaintiff sustained a lawful 

injury-in-fact pursuant to the ADA.

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

Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, published revised regulations for Title III 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the Federal Register to implement the 

requirements of the ADA. Public accommodations were required to conform to these regulations 

on or before March 15, 2012.1

16. A specific, although not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers, dangerous 

conditions and ADA violations which preclude and/or limit Plaintiff’s ability (because of his 

1

“Safe Harbor. Elements that have not been altered in existing facilities on or after March 15, 2012, and that comply 

with the corresponding technical and scoping specification for those elements in the 1991 Standards are not required 

to be modified in order to comply with the requirements set forth in the 2010 Standards” 28 CFR §36.304(d)(2)(i), 

however, the violations described herein violate both the 1991 Standards as well as the 2010 Standards.

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 3 of 11
disability) to access the Facility and/or full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Facility include:

Accessible Parking

A. The plaintiff had difficulty traversing the passenger loading zone as there

is no marked access aisle or signage. Violation: Passenger loading shall 

provide access aisles adjacent to the vehicle pull-up space. Access aisles 

shall adjoin an accessible route and not overlap the vehicular way, in 

accordance with Section 503.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards. 

Recommendation: Provide an access aisle that is adjacent space. Cost 

$500. The removal of this barrier is readily achievable as this barrier is 

cited as an example of readily achievable in Sections 503 and 503.2 of the 

2010 ADA Standards- Passenger Loading Zones, Access Aisles.

Main Entrance

B. The plaintiff had difficulty identifying the facility as accessible as there is 

no signage indicating accessibility posted at the main entrance. Violation: 

Designations- interior and exterior signs identifying permanent rooms and 

spaces shall comply with Section 703.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

Recommendation: Provide signage at the front entrance. Cost: Less than

$75. The removal of this barrier is readily achievable as this barrier is 

cited as an example of readily achievable in Section 216.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards-Signs.

C. The plaintiff had difficulty exiting the men’s rest room due to the width of 

the corridor. Violation: the maneuvering clearance at the pull side of the 

door is less than 54 inches. Violation: the parallel maneuvering clearance 

for a latch side pull side approach shall comply with Section 404.2.4.1(i)

of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Install an automatic door 

opener. Cost: $3500. The removal of this barrier is readily achievable as 

this barrier is cited as an example of readily achievable in Section 206.5 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards- Doors, Doorways and Gates

Men’s Public Restroom

D. The plaintiff had difficulty utilizing the side wall grab bar due to the

obstruction of the toilet paper dispenser located less than 12 inches above 

the grab bar. Violation: Spacing above grab bars shall comply with 609.3 

of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Relocate the toilet paper 

dispenser below grab bar 7 to 9 inches in front of the toilet. Cost: less than 

$100. The removal of this barrier is readily achievable as this barrier is 

cited as an example of readily achievable in Section 609.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards. Grab Bars.

E. The plaintiff needed assistance utilizing the water closet due to the rear 

wall grab bar missing. Violation: Grab bars shall be provided on the side 

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 4 of 11
wall closest to the water closet and on the rear wall in compliance with 

Section 604.5.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Install a 

grab bar on the rear wall behind the water closet that is 36 inches long 

minimum and extends from the centerline of the water closet 12 inches 

minimum on one side and 24 inches minimum on the other side and 33 

inches minimum and 36 inches maximum above the finish floor measured 

to the top of the gripping surface. Cost: Less than $500. The removal of 

this barrier is readily achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of 

readily achievable in Section 604.5.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Grab 

bars.

F. The plaintiff had difficulty entering and exiting the toilet compartment

stall because there are no door pulls on both sides of the stall door. 

Violation: A door pull complying with 404.2.7 shall be placed on both 

sides of the door near the latch as required in Section 604.8.1.2 of the 

2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Install u-shaped loop handles on 

both sides of the stall door 34 inches minimum and 48 maximum above 

the finish floor. Cost: Less than $100. The removal of this barrier is 

readily achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily 

achievable in Section 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards- Doors.

G. The height of the reflecting surface of the mirror above the lavatory in the 

men’s restroom exceeds 40 inches making it difficult for the plaintiff to 

utilize the mirror. Violation: Mirrors located above lavatories or 

countertops shall be installed with the bottom edge of the reflecting 

surface 40 inches maximum above the finish floor as required in Section 

603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Relocate the mirror 

so that the reflecting surface is less than 40 inches above the finished 

floor. The top edge of mirrors should be 74 inches (1880 mm) minimum 

from the floor or ground. Cost: less than $100. The removal of this barrier 

is readily achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily 

achievable in Section 603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards- Toilet and 

Bathing Room Mirrors.

H. The effort to remove a paper towel from the automatic dispenser requires 

two hands and tight grasping and pinching making it difficult for the 

plaintiff to operate. Violation: Operable parts shall be operable with one 

hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist

to operate as required in Section 309.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards. 

Recommendation: Provide a dispenser that can be operated with one hand 

without tight grasping, pinching or twisting of the wrist to operate. Cost: 

$250-350. The removal of this barrier is readily achievable as this barrier 

is cited as an example of readily achievable in Section 309.4 of the 2010 

ADA Standards. Operable Parts.

Access to Goods and Services

I. The height of the computer workstation in the lobby exceeds the 

maximum height of 34 inches above the finish floor making it difficult for 

the plaintiff to utilize. Violation: The tops of dining surfaces and work 

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 5 of 11
surfaces shall be 28 inches minimum and 34 inches maximum above the 

finish floor or ground as required in Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards. Recommendation: Lower the height of the work station to a 

height of 28 inches minimum to 34 inches maximum from the finished 

floor. Cost: $250-$400. The removal of this barrier is readily achievable 

as this barrier is cited as an example of readily achievable in Section 902 

of the 2010 ADA Standards. Dining Surfaces and work surfaces.

J. The maneuvering clearance for the swimming pool enclosure gate is less 

than the required minimum making it difficult for the plaintiff to enter and 

exit the enclosure gate. Violations: The maneuvering clearance on the pull 

side of the gate is less than 18 inches which is required in Section 

404.2.4.1(a) of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Extend the 

concrete walkway to 18 inches wide by 60 inches perpendicular to the gate 

minimum on the pull side. Cost $3500. The removal of this barrier is 

readily achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily 

achievable in Section 404.2.4.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Doors, 

Doorways and Gates.

K. There is no kick plate installed at the bottom of the pool enclosure gate 

making it difficult for the plaintiff to exit the enclosure without assistance. 

Violation: Swinging door and gate surfaces within 10 inches (255 mm) of 

the finish floor or ground measured vertically shall have a smooth surface 

on the push side extending the full width of the door or gate in accordance 

with Section 404.2.10 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: 

Attach a kick plate to the bottom 10 inches of the push side surface. Cost: 

Less than $225. The removal of this barrier is readily achievable as this 

barrier is cited as an example of readily achievable in Section 404 of the 

2010 ADA Standards. Doors, Doorways and Gates.

L. The control for the pool shower cannot be operated without tight grasping, 

pinching, or twisting of the wrist making it difficult for the plaintiff to 

operate. Violation: Operable parts shall be operable with one hand and 

shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to 

operate as required in Section 309.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards. 

Recommendation: Replace the shower control with a rigid loop device. 

Cost: Less than $100. The removal of this barrier is readily achievable as 

this barrier is cited as an example of readily achievable in Section 309 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards. Operable Parts.

Guestroom 107

M. The height of the iron provided exceeds the maximum height requirement 

of 48 inches making it difficult for the plaintiff to reach. Violation: Where 

a forward reach is unobstructed, the high forward reach shall be 48 inches 

maximum above the finish floor or ground as required in Section 

308.2.1of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Relocate the iron 

so that the appliance is within the reach range required by the 2010 

Standards. Cost: Less than $75. The removal of this barrier is readily 

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 6 of 11
achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily achievable in 

Section 308.2.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Reach Ranges.

N. The pull door with a forward approach does not provide 18 inches of latch 

side clearance maneuvering clearance parallel to the doorway making 

difficult for the plaintiff to exit the room unassisted. Violation: The 

maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the door is less than 18 inches 

that is required in Section 404.2.4.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards 

Recommendation: Install an automatic door opener and an electromagnetic lock. Cost: $2500-$3500. The removal of this barrier is readily 

achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily achievable in 

Section 404 of the 2010 ADA Standard. Doors, Doorways and Gates.

O. The pulls for the curtain drapes cannot be operated without tight grasping

and pinching making it difficult for the plaintiff to operate. Violation: 

Operable parts shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight 

grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist as required in Section 309.4 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Replace the existing pulls 

with loop type pulls. Cost: Less than $100 per pull. The removal of this 

barrier is readily achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily 

achievable in Section 309.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Operable Parts.

P. The controls for the air conditioner cannot be without tight grasping, 

pinching, or twisting of the wrist making it difficult for the plaintiff to 

operate. Violation: Operable parts shall be operable with one hand and 

shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist as 

required in Section 309.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: 

Replace the existing controls with new ones. Cost: $300-$500. The 

removal of this barrier is readily achievable as this barrier is cited as an 

example of readily achievable in Section 309.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards. Operable Parts.

Q. The water closet does not provide compliant clear floor space making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to utilize. Violation: The clearance around a water 

closet shall be 60 inches minimum measured perpendicular from the side 

wall and 56 inches minimum measured perpendicular from the rear wall as 

required in Section 604.3.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Section 604.3.2 

of the 2010 ADA Standards also requires that no other fixtures or 

obstructions shall be located within the required water closet clearance. 

Recommendation: Reconfigure and remodel the restroom to provide the

required clearances. Cost: $3,500-$5,000. The removal of this barrier is 

readily achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily 

achievable in Section 604.3.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Water Closets.

R. The length of the grab bar on the back wall provided in the standard roll-in 

type shower exceeds the maximum of 6 inches from the adjacent wall

making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize the shower without assistance. 

Violation: Where a seat is provided in standard roll-in type shower 

compartment, grab bars shall be provided on the back wall and the side 

wall opposite the seat. Grab bars shall not be provided above the seat. 

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 7 of 11
Grab bars shall be installed 6 inches maximum from adjacent walls as 

required in Section 608.3.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards. 

Recommendation: Install a grab bar on the back wall extending a 

maximum of 27 inches from the seat wall to a maximum of 6 inches from 

the opposite wall at a height of 33 inches minimum to 36 inches maximum 

to the top of the gripping surface. Cost: $500. The removal of this barrier 

is readily achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily 

achievable in Section 608.3.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Grab Bars.

S. The height of the adjustable shower spray unit in room 107 exceeds 48 

inches. Violation: Where a forward reach is unobstructed, the high 

forward reach shall be 48 inches maximum as required in Section 308.2.1 

of the 2010 ADA Standards. Recommendation: Instruct the housekeeping 

staff to lower the adjustable showerheads to height of less than 48 inches 

when cleaning accessible rooms. The removal of this barrier is readily 

achievable as this barrier is cited as an example of readily achievable in 

Section 308.2.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards- Forward Reach

17. The above listing is not to be considered all-inclusive of the barriers, conditions or 

violations encountered by Plaintiff and/or which exist at the Facility. Plaintiff requires an 

inspection of the Facility in order to photograph, measure and determine all of the discriminatory

acts violating the ADA. 

18. The removal of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations 

set forth herein is readily achievable and can be accomplished and carried out without much 

difficulty or expense pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(B)(2)(A)(iv); 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9); and 28 

C.F.R, § 36.304.

19. The ADA defines “readily achievable as “easily accomplishable and without 

much difficult or expenses.”42 U.S.C. §12181(9) Congress included in the ADA factors to be 

considered in evaluating whether removal of a barrier is “readily achievable.” These factors are 

(1) nature and cost of the action; (2) overall financial resources of the facility or facilities 

involved; (3) number of persons employed at such facility; (4) effect on expenses and resources; 

(5) impact of such action upon the operation of the facility; (6) overall financial resources of the 

covered entity; (7) overall size of the business of a covered entity; (8) the number, type, and 

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 8 of 11
location of its facilities; (9) type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including 

composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity, and (10)geographic 

separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the 

covered entity. Garthright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., 452 F. 3d 1269, 1272-73 (11th 

Cir. 2006). 

20. The obligation to engage in readily achievable barrier removal is a continuing 

one. Over time, barrier removal that initially was not readily achievable may later be required 

because of changed circumstances. DOJ ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual, Section III4.4400 Continuing obligation. 

21. Because, inter alia, this facility was designed, constructed, and received its State 

Licensure on September 8, 2011, Plaintiff asserts that said ADA violations are intentional in 

nature and will not be corrected absent Court intervention, thus exacerbating the intentional legal 

harm and injury to which Plaintiff has been and will continue to be subjected in the future.

22. Plaintiff will undoubtedly return to the Subject Premises once the barriers to 

access have been remediated—not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the 

Subject Premises, but to confirm and assure himself that the Subject Premises has been brought 

into compliance with the ADA and maintained in compliance with the ADA so that Plaintiff and 

other persons with disabilities will have equal access to the Subject Premises without fear of 

discrimination, endangerment of their safety, or social and public embarrassment.

23. Independent of his personal desire to access this place of public accommodation

as required by law, Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated persons with 

disabilities and an advocate for asserting his own civil rights. However, Plaintiff is deterred

from returning to the Subject Premises as long as the Defendants continue to operate the Subject 

Premises in violation of the ADA and ADAAG.

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 9 of 11
24. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, and continuing threat of discrimination by the

Defendants as long as the Subject Premises remains in non-compliance with the ADA.

25. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff and others with disabilities by 

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

advantages and/or accommodations of the Facility, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C., § 12182, et. seq., 

and by failing to remove architectural barriers as required by 42 U.S.C., § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) 

and will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until 

Defendants are compelled to remove all physical barriers that exist at the Facility, including 

those specifically set forth herein, and make the Facility accessible to and usable by persons with 

disabilities, including Plaintiff.

26. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer direct and indirect injury as a result

of the ADA violations that exist at the Subject Premises and the actions or inactions described 

herein.

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

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

Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA 

violations that exist at the Facility, including those set forth herein. 

28. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain undersigned counsel for the filing and

prosecution of this action. The Plaintiff is entitled to have his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs 

and expenses paid by the Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C., §§ 12205 and 12217.

29. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188(a), this Court is provided with authority to grant

injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including an order to alter the subject Facility to make it 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.

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 10 of 11
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue a permanent 

injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing is discriminatory practices, ordering 

Defendants to remove the physical barriers to access and alter the subject Facility to make it 

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

ADA, closing the subject Facility until the barriers are removed and requisite alterations are 

completed, and awarding Plaintiff his reasonable attorney’s fees, expert fees, costs and litigation 

expenses incurred in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Glenn R. Goldstein

Glenn R. Goldstein, Esq. (FBN: 55873)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Glenn R. Goldstein & Associates, PLLC

8101 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 504

Miami, Florida 33138

(305) 900-2373

GGoldstein@G2Legal.net

s/ Lauren N. Wassenberg

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

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lauren N. Wassenberg & Associates, P.A.

1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 110

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

(561) 571-0646

WassenbergL@gmail.com

Case 2:22-cv-14315-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 11 of 11