1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Civil Action Number:

JESUS GONZALEZ

Plaintiff,

vs.

PINCHO FACTORY #2, INC. and

JONA-SHAREGO, LLC 

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby sues 

Defendant Pincho Factory #2, Inc. and Defendant Jona-Sharego, LLC for injunctive relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 

28 C.F.R. Part 36 and alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189. This Court is 

vested with original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

2. Venue is proper in the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) in that all 

events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within the Southern District of Florida and the 

subject premises is located within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Defendant Pincho Factory #2, Inc. and Defendant Jona-Sharego, LLC are 

authorized to conduct, and are conducting, business within the State of Florida and within 

the jurisdiction of this court. 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 1 of 11
2

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of the state of Florida. 

Plaintiff has a “qualified disability” under the ADA as he is disabled with neuropathy and 

nerve damage due to radiation and utilizes a wheelchair for mobility. Plaintiff’s disability is 

defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(A)(2), 28 C.F.R. §36.105(b)(2) and 28 C.F.R. 

§36.105(2)(iii)(D). Plaintiff is also a “tester” to determine whether public accommodations 

are in compliance with the ADA/ADAAG.

5. Defendant Pincho Factory #2, Inc. (also referenced as “Defendant Pincho 

#2,” “operator,” or “lessee”) is a Florida for profit corporation which is the owner and 

operator of the Pincho Factory restaurant located at 30 Giralda Avenue, Coral Gables, 

Florida 33134.

6. Defendant Jona-Sharego, LLC (also referenced as “Defendant JonaSharego,” “owner,” or “lessor”) is a Florida limited liability company which is the owner of 

commercial real property identified as Folio 03-4108-007-3230, with post address 79 

Merrick Way, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (also known by the location/address 30 Giralda 

Venue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134). Defendant Jona-Sharego’s commercial property 

consists of a building which houses a restaurant, a salon/spa, and a hair salon. The restaurant 

portion of the property is operating as the subject Pincho Factory restaurant.

FACTS

7. At all times material hereto, Defendant Jona-Sharego has leased a portion of 

its commercial building to Defendant Pincho #2 who in turn has operated (and continues to 

operate) its Pincho Factory restaurant within that leased space.

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 2 of 11
3

8. Defendant Pincho #2’s “Pincho Factory” restaurant is one of a small chain of 

“Pincho” restaurants in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. All ten Pincho brand restaurants

feature beef burgers, kebabs and Latin sides such as tostones, fries, and rice and beans. The 

name “Pincho Factory” is currently going through a re-branding as “Pincho Burgers + 

Kebabs.” The Pincho Factory restaurant which is the subject of this instant action is located 

at 30 Giralda Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 and is open to the public, therefore it is a 

place of public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B) as “[A] restaurant, bar, 

or other establishment serving food or drink.” This Pincho Factory restaurant is also referred 

to as “Pincho Factory restaurant,” “restaurant,” or “place of public accommodation.”

9. As the owner/operator of a restaurant which is open to the public, Defendant 

Pincho #2 is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title III because it is 

a private entity which owns, or operates a restaurant; 42 U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(B) and 

28 C.F.R. §36.104(2).

10. Due to the close proximity to Plaintiff’s home to the Pincho Factory located 

at 30 Giralda Avenue, on August 16, 2022, Plaintiff personally visited the restaurant to 

purchase a meal and dine therein and to test for compliance with the ADA/ADAAG.

11. Due to the fact that he perambulates with the assistance of a wheelchair, 

Plaintiff met barriers to access while testing/dining within the restaurant. 

12. Based on the access impediments Plaintiff encountered, Plaintiff has been 

denied full and equal access by the operator of the Pincho Factory restaurant (Defendant 

Pincho #2) and by the owner of the commercial property which houses the restaurant 

(Defendant Jona-Sharego).

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 3 of 11
4

13. As the owner and operator of the Pincho Factory restaurant, Defendant 

Pincho #2 is aware of the ADA and the need to provide for equal access in all areas of its

restaurant. Therefore, its failure to reasonably accommodate mobility impaired and disabled 

patrons by insuring that its restaurant is fully accessible is/was willful, malicious, and 

oppressive and in complete disregard for the Civil Rights of the Plaintiff and in violation of 

28 C.F.R. §36.302.

14. As the owner of commercial property which is built out and utilized as a 

restaurant open to the public, Defendant Jona-Sharego is a “Public Accommodation" within 

meaning of Title III; 42 U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(B) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2). 

15. As the owner of commercial property which is utilized as a place of public 

accommodation, Defendant Jona-Sharego is aware of the ADA and the need to provide for 

equal access in all areas of its commercial property which are open to the public. Failure to 

reasonably accommodate mobility impaired and disabled patrons by insuring that its 

property is fully accessible is/was willful, malicious, and oppressive and in complete 

disregard for the civil rights of the Plaintiff and in violation of 28 C.F.R. §36.302.

16. As a result of the joint and several discrimination by Defendants, Plaintiff 

has suffered loss of dignity, mental anguish and other tangible injuries and has suffered an 

injury-in-fact.

17. Plaintiff continues to desire to patronize and/or test the Pincho Factory 

restaurant at 30 Giralda Avenue, but continues to be injured in that he continues to be 

discriminated against due to the barriers to access within that restaurant which are in 

violation of the ADA.

18. Any and all requisite notice has been provided. 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 4 of 11
5

19. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the civil rights law office of J. Courtney 

Cunningham, PLLC and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of 

this cause, including costs and expenses incurred. Plaintiff is entitled to recover those 

attorney’s fees, costs and expenses from Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF TITLE III OF THE ADA

20. The ADA was enacted and effective as of July 26, 1990 and ADA legislation 

has been protecting disabled persons from discrimination due to disabilities since that time. 

Over 30 years have passed since enactment of the ADA, public accommodations and places 

of public accommodation have had adequate time for compliance. 

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

(i) provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the 

elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(ii) provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and,

(iii) invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to 

enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in 

order to address the major areas of discrimination faced on a daily 

by people with disabilities.

42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

22. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff personally visited the Pincho 

Factory restaurant at 30 Giralda Avenue with the intention of patronizing that restaurant to 

enjoy a meal and/or test the public accommodation for compliance with the ADA/ADAAG. 

However, Plaintiff was denied adequate accommodation because, as a disabled individual 

who utilizes a wheelchair for mobility, Plaintiff met barriers to access. Therefore, Plaintiff 

has suffered an injury in fact. 

23. Defendant Jona-Sharego and Defendant Pincho #2 have discriminated (and

continue to discriminate) against Plaintiff by denying full and equal access to, and full and 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 5 of 11
6

equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations 

at the Pincho Factory restaurant in derogation of 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. and as prohibited 

by 42 U.S.C. §12182 et seq. by failing to remove barriers to access pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§12182(b)(2)(a)(iv), where such removal is readily achievable. 

24. Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and 

equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at the

Pincho Factory restaurant located at 30 Giralda Avenue. 

25. Defendants are jointly and singularly governed by the ADA and must be in 

compliance therewith. However, Defendants have discriminated against disabled patrons in 

derogation of 28 C.F.R. Part 36.

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

amended), the Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, promulgated Federal 

Regulations to implement the requirements of the ADA, known as the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, under 

which said Department may obtain civil penalties of up to $75,000 for the first violation and 

$150,000 for any subsequent violation.

27. Defendant Jona-Sharego’s commercial property, which houses Defendant 

Pincho #2’s restaurant, is in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., the ADA and 28 C.F.R. 

§36.302 et seq., and both Defendants are discriminating against the Plaintiff as a result of 

inter alia, the following specific violations: 

i. As to Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego 

(owner of the commercial property) (jointly and severally), Plaintiff had difficulty 

entering the secondary entrance door, as it has a vertical change of level at the door 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 6 of 11
7

threshold and does not have signage posted indicating the location of an accessible 

entrance. The failure to have signage displaying the international symbol for 

accessibility and providing the location of the entrance door which is accessible is in 

violation of 28 C.F.R. Part 36 and ADA Code §216.6. The fact that the secondary 

entrance door has a vertical change of level at the door threshold is in violation of 

Section 4.13.8 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design (which is detailed at section (ii) below).

ii. As to Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego 

(owner of the commercial property) (jointly and severally), Plaintiff had difficulty

perambulating into the restaurant and using the main entrance because the main door 

has a change in level at the door threshold. This is a violation of Section 4.13.8 of 

the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible 

Design (maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the 

required latch side or hinge side clearance). Section 4.13.8 states that thresholds at 

doorways shall not exceed 3/4 in (19 mm) in height for exterior sliding doors or 1/2 

in (13 mm) for other types of doors. Raised thresholds and floor level changes at 

accessible doorways shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2, which not 

attained at either the main entrance or the secondary entrance to the restaurant. 

iii. As to Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego

(owner of the commercial property) (jointly and severally), the seating area of the 

restaurant does not comply with the standards prescribed in Section 4.32 of the 

ADAAG and Sections 226 and 902 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible 

Design. 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 7 of 11
8

iv. As to Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego

(owner of the commercial property) (jointly and severally), Plaintiff was unable to 

sit in the restaurant and enjoy a meal due to the fact that the restaurant has not 

provided a sufficient number of interior accessible dining seating and surfaces, 

which is in violation of Section 5.1 of the ADAAG and Section 226 of the 2010 

ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Section 5.1 requires (wheelchair) access for 

a minimum of 5% of fixed or built-in tables distributed throughout dining areas. The 

required clear width (36 inches minimum) is specified for the clearance between the 

edges of fixed tables or between table edges and walls. Section 226.1 requires that, 

where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least five 

percent (5%) of the dining seating and standing spaces.

v. As to Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego

(owner of the commercial property) (jointly and severally), Plaintiff could not enter 

the men’s accessible restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance on the push side of the restroom entry door (for doors with closer and 

latch) is not provided. The fact that the restroom door does not provide the required 

maneuvering clearance is a violation Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 

404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (maneuvering clearances 

shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side 

clearance).

vi. As to Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego

(owner of the commercial property) (jointly and severally), as to the men’s 

accessible restroom, Plaintiff could not use the toilet without assistance, as the toilet 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 8 of 11
9

is mounted outside the required distance from the side wall, therefore it is mounted 

at a non-compliant distance from the side wall. This is a violation of Sections 4.16.2 

of the ADAAG and Sections 604.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible 

Design. According to Section 4.16.2 at Fig 28, the toilet should be mounted 18 min 

(455 mm) from the side wall to the center line of toilet. The side wall mount shall be 

either mounted 18 min (455 mm) from the side wall to the center line of toilet or min 

(1065 cm) from the side wall to the center of the toilet.

vii. As to Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego

(owner of the commercial property) (jointly and severally), as to the men’s 

accessible restroom, Plaintiff could not use the toilet paper dispenser without 

assistance, as the toilet paper dispenser is not in the proper position in front of the 

water closet or at the correct height above the finished floor, in violation of Section 

4.16.6 and Fig. 29 of the ADAAG. Section 4.16.6 states that toilet paper dispensers 

shall be installed within reach, as shown in Fig. 29(b). This is also a violation of 

Section 604.7 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design which states that toilet 

paper dispensers shall comply with Section 309.4 and shall be 7 inches (180 cm) 

minimum and 9 inches (230 cm) maximum in front of the water closet measured to 

the centerline of the dispenser. Further, the outlet of the dispenser shall be 15 inches 

(380 mm) minimum and 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum above the finished floor 

and shall not be located behind grab bars. Section 604.9.6 further states that there 

must be a clearance of 11⁄2 inches (38 mm) minimum below the grab bar and that 

dispensers shall not be of a type that controls delivery or that does not allow 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 9 of 11
10

continuous paper flow. The subject toilet paper dispenser is in violation of these 

sections.

viii. As to Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego

(owner of the commercial property) (jointly and severally), as to the men’s 

accessible restroom, Plaintiff could not use the soap dispenser without assistance, as 

it is not mounted at the required location, which is violation of 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

The soap dispenser is not mounted in accordance with the forward reach guidelines 

delineated at Section 4.2.5 (Fig 5) of the ADAAG. This is also a violation of the 

2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, specifically Section 606.1 which states 

that when soap and towel dispensers are provided, they must be within the reach 

ranges specified in Section 308.2.1. This section states that, where a forward reach is 

unobstructed, the high forward reach shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum and 

the low forward reach shall be 15 inches (380 mm) minimum above the finished 

floor or ground. 

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

Defendants have been required to make the commercial property and the Pincho Factory 

restaurant operated therein accessible to persons with disabilities since January 28, 1992. 

Defendants have jointly and severally failed to comply with this mandate.

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

Plaintiff injunctive relief; including an order to alter the commercial property and the Pincho 

Factory restaurant located therein such that it is made readily accessible to, and useable by, 

individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA.

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 10 of 11
11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez hereby demands judgment against 

Defendant Jona-Sharego, LLC (owner of the commercial property) and Defendant Pincho 

Factory #2, Inc. (owner/operator of the Pincho Factory restaurant located therein) and 

requests the following injunctive and declaratory relief: 

a) The Court declare that Defendants have violated the ADA;

b) The Court enter an Order directing Defendants to evaluate and neutralize 

their policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, 

c) The Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to alter the commercial 

property and the Pincho Factory restaurant located therein such that it becomes 

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full extent required 

by the Title III of the ADA;

d) The Court award reasonable costs and attorneys fees; and 

e) The Court award any and all other relief that may be necessary and

appropriate. 

Dated September 19, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

Telephone: 305-351-2014

Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22987-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 11 of 11