Page 1 of 12 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE No.: 1:22-cv-22987-RKA

JESUS GONZALEZ

Plaintiff,

vs. 

PINCHO FACTORY #2, INC. and 

JONA-SHAREGO, LLC 

 Defendants. 

 / 

AMENDED 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-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 1 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 2 of 12 

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 Jona-Sharego,” 

“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. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 2 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 3 of 12

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).

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 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 3 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 4 of 12

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 discriminations by Defendants, Plaintiff has 

suffered loss of dignity, mental anguish and other tangible injuries and has suffered an injury-infact.

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.

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.

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 4 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 5 of 12 

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. Plaintiff could not enter the door

because of the 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 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 5 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 6 of 12

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 because he cannot enter the restaurant in his 

wheelchair. 

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. Plaintiff could not enter the secondary entrance door, as it has a vertical change of level 

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

accessible entrance. Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant 

Jona-Sharego (owner of the commercial property) are responsible jointly and severally.

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 6 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 7 of 12

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. Plaintiff had could not enter into the restaurant and using the main entrance because the 

main door has a change in level at the door threshold. Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of 

the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego (owner of the commercial property) are 

jointly and severally responsible. 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. If Plaintiff had been able to enter the restaurant, he would have found that 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. Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego

(owner of the commercial property) are jointly and severally responsible.

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 7 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 8 of 12

iv. If Plaintiff could have entered the restaurant, Plaintiff would have been 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. Defendant Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and 

Defendant Jona-Sharego (owner of the commercial property) are (jointly and severally)

responsible. 

v. If Plaintiff could have entered the restaurant, 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). Defendant Pincho #2

(operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego (owner of the commercial 

property) are jointly and severally responsible.

vi. If Plaintiff could have entered the restaurant, Plaintiff could not have used the toilet 

without assistance, as the toilet is mounted outside the required distance from the side 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 8 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 9 of 12

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. Defendant Pincho #2

(operator of the restaurant) and Defendant Jona-Sharego (owner of the commercial 

property are jointly and severally responsible.

vii. If Plaintiff could have entered the restaurant, Plaintiff could not have used 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 continuous paper flow. The subject 

toilet paper dispenser is in violation of these sections. Defendant, Pincho #2 (operator of 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 9 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 10 of 12

the restaurant) and Defendant, Jona-Sharego (owner of the commercial property) are 

jointly and severally responsible.

viii. If Plaintiff had been able to enter the restaurant, Plaintiff would not have been able to 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. Defendant, Pincho #2 (operator of the restaurant) and Defendant, JonaSharego (owner of the commercial property) are jointly and severally responsible.

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.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez hereby demands judgment against Defendant, 

Jona-Sharego, LLC (owner of the commercial property) and Defendant, Pincho Factory #2, Inc.

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 10 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 11 of 12 

(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. 

Respectfully submitted on this October 18, 2022. 

 By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

 J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. 

 FBN: 628166 

 J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 

 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 

 Miami, Florida 33156 

 Phone: 305-351-2014 

 cc@cunninghampllc.com

legal@cunninghampllc.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 11 of 12
Gonzalez v. Pincho Factory #2, et al

Case No. 22-cv-22987-RKA

Page 12 of 12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 18, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of electronic filing to 

all parties and counsel of record, or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties 

who are not authorized to receive notices electronically. 

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. 

FBN: 628166 

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 

Miami, Florida 33156 

T: 305-351-2014 

cc@cunninghampllc.com 

legal@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22987-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 12 of 12