UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

JUAN CARLOS GIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

(hereinafter “Defendant”), and as grounds alleges:

JURISDICTION, PARTIES. AND VENUE

1. This is an action for injunctive relief, a declaration of rights, attorneys' fees,

litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., (the “Americans with 

Disabilities Act” or “ADA”) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

2. The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C.

§ 12181, et seq. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a).

3. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,

and may render declaratory judgment on the existence or nonexistence of any right under 42 

U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. 

4. Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a

residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.

5. At all times material, Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., owned and

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 1 of 10
2

operated a commercial building located at 5880 SW 40th Street Miami, FL 33155 (hereinafter the 

“Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public 

accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

6. At all times material, Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., was and is a 

National Association, organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of 

business in Miami, Florida.

7. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant’s 

Commercial Property is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendant regularly conducts

business within Miami-Dade County, Florida, and because a substantial part(s) of the events or 

omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Although over thirty (30) years have passed since the effective date of Title III of 

the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities.

9. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the 

Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive 

publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant continues to discriminate against people 

who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant’s business and 

property.

10. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in 28 CFR 36.201 and 

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance.

11. Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, is substantially limited in major life 

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 2 of 10
3

activities due to his impairment and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

12. Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., owns, operates and/or oversees the 

Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. 

13. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Miami, 

Florida, in Miami-Dade County.

14. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and business located within 

the Commercial Property, regularly, to include visits to the Commercial Property and businesses 

located within the Commercial Property on or about March 9, 2022 and encountered multiple 

violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property 

and businesses located therein. He often visits the Commercial Property in order to avail himself 

of the goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately four (4) miles from his 

residence and is near other businesses he frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the 

Commercial Property within two (2) months of the filing of this complaint, specifically on or prior 

to November 7, 2022.

15. Plaintiff resides nearby, in the same County and state as the Commercial Property 

and has frequented the Defendant’s Commercial Property for the intended purposes because of 

the proximity to his residence and other businesses that he frequents as a patron and he intends to 

return to the Commercial Property within two (2) months of the filing of this complaint, 

specifically on or prior to November 7, 2022.

16. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The 

Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his 

patronage and use of each of the premises.

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 3 of 10
4

17. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA 

at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access the Commercial Property have each 

denied or diminished Plaintiff’s ability to visit the Commercial Property, and have endangered his 

safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, which are set forth below, have likewise 

posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, and 

others similarly situated.

18. Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., owns and/or operates a place of public 

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

36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendant,WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is responsible for complying 

with the obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation that Defendant, WELLS 

FARGO BANK, N.A., owns and operates is the Commercial Property and Business located 5880 

SW 40th Street, Miami, Florida 33155.

19. Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing 

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

described Commercial Property, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations in this 

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

discrimination at the Commercial Property in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the 

Commercial Property, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the 

Commercial Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial Property is in compliance with 

the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the 

Commercial Property, without fear of discrimination.

20. Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as landlord and owner of the 

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 4 of 10
5

Commercial Property Business, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in this complaint.

21. Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing 

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

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

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

at the Commercial Property, in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial 

Property, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the Commercial Property, 

but to assure himself that the Commercial Property, is in compliance with the ADA, so that he 

and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the Commercial Property 

without fear of discrimination.

22. Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access 

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

accommodations of the Commercial Property as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

ADA VIOLATIONS

23. The Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

22 above as though fully set forth herein.

24. Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., has discriminated, and continues to 

discriminate, against Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing, inter alia, to have accessible 

facilities by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if a Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and 

gross receipts of $500,000 or less). A list of the violations that Plaintiff encountered during his 

visit to the Commercial Property, include but are not limited to, the following:

A. Parking

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 5 of 10
6

i. Accessible spaces lack clear and level aisles have slopes or cross slopes >2%, endangering 

Plaintiff when unloading and violating the ADAAG and 2010 ADAS Section 502. 

ii. Accessible spaces are not located on firm, stable and level slip-resistant surfaces 

preventing safe use by Plaintiff, in violation of the ADAAG and 2010 ADAS Section 502.

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. Accessible routes at the Commercial Property have cross slopes >2%, creating hazardous 

conditions for Plaintiff in violation of ADAAG Section 4.3 and Sections 402 and 403 of 

the 2010 ADAS.

C. Restrooms

i. Plaintiff unable to use mirror due to bottom-reflecting surface mounted at a height >40” 

AFF, violating the ADAAG and 2010 ADAS.

ii. There are items mounted <12” above the rear grab bar prevent use of grab bar by Plaintiff, 

in violation of the ADAAG and 2010 ADAS. 

iii. Toilet flush valve not mounted on wide side, denying access to Plaintiff and violating the 

ADAAG and 2010 ADAS Sec. 604.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

25. The discriminatory violations described in this Complaint are not an exclusive list 

of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendant’s place of 

public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts violating 

the ADA and barriers to access in conjunction with Rule 34 and timely notice. Plaintiff further 

requests to inspect any and all barriers to access that were concealed by virtue of the barriers' 

presence, which prevented Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, from further ingress, use, and equal 

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 6 of 10
7

enjoyment of the Commercial Property and the business therein; Plaintiff requests to be physically 

present at such inspection in conjunction with Rule 34 and timely notice. Plaintiff requests the 

inspection in order to participate in crafting a remediation plan to address Plaintiff’s request for 

injunctive relief.

26. The individual Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly situated, have been 

denied access to, and have been denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities 

privileges, benefits, programs and activities offered by Defendant’s Commercial Property; and has 

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

ADA violations as set forth above. The individual Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, will 

continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief provided 

by the ADA as requested herein. In order to remedy the discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff 

requires an inspection of the Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to determine all 

of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff further requests 

a remediation plan and the opportunity to participate in the crafting of the remediation plan to 

address Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

27. Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him 

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

accommodations of their places of public accommodation or commercial facility, in violation of 

42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendant continues to 

discriminate against Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, by failing to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford 

all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with 

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 7 of 10
8

disabilities; and by failing to take such efforts that may be necessary to ensure that no individual 

with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other 

individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services.

28. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, will suffer irreparable harm, and have 

a clear legal right to the relief sought. Further, injunctive relief will serve the public interest and 

all those similarly situated to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled 

to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

29. A Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the 

physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for their place of public similarly 

situated, will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate 

relief provided by the ADA as requested herein. In order to remedy the discriminatory situation, 

the Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to 

determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

30. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of the Defendant’s failure to cure 

the violations by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if a Defendant have 10 or fewer employees 

and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). All other conditions precedent have been met by Plaintiff 

or waived by the Defendant.

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

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to alter the property where Defendant operates its 

business, located within the Commercial Property located in Miami-Dade County, the interiors, 

exterior areas, and the common exterior areas of the Commercial Property and business to make 

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 8 of 10
9

those facilities readily accessible and useable to the Plaintiff and all other mobility-impaired 

persons; or by closing the facility until such time as the Defendant cures its violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, JUAN CARLOS GIL, respectfully requests that the 

Honorable Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendant, at the commencement 

of the subject lawsuit, was and is in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; (ii) Injunctive relief against Defendant, including an order to make all 

readily achievable alterations to the facilities; or to make such facilities readily accessible to and 

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

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

are necessary to afford all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 

accommodations to individuals with disabilities; and by failing to take such steps that may be 

necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or 

otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and 

services; (iii) An award of attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205; and (iv) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Dated: September 14, 2022

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 9 of 10
10

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4937 S.W. 74th Court

Miami, Florida 33155

Telephone: (305) 553-3464

Facsimile: (305) 553-3031

Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

Secondary E-Mails: bvirues@lawgmp.com

dperaza@lawgmp.com

By: /s/ Anthony J. Perez 

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

 Florida Bar No.: 535451

BEVERLY VIRUES

 Florida Bar No.: 1026830

Case 1:22-cv-22932-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 10 of 10