1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AVANT'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, INC., 

a Florida Profit Corporation, JAMES H. 

BATMASIAN, and MARTA T. 

BATMASIAN, Individuals,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), through the 

undersigned counsel, hereby files this complaint and sues AVANT'S 

AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, INC. (“AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR”), JAMES H. BATMASIAN (“J. 

BATMASIAN”) and MARTA T. BATMASIAN (“M. BATMASIAN”) (hereinafter, 

collectively referred to as “Defendants”), for declaratory and injunctive relief; 

for discrimination based on disability; and for the resultant attorney's fees, 

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181 et. seq., ("AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES 

ACT OF 1990," or "ADA") and alleges:

JURISDICTION 

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

28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under Title 42 U.S.C. 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 1 of 15
2

§12181 et. seq., based on Defendants’ violations of Title III of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990, (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA"). See also 

28 U.S.C. §2201 and §2202.

VENUE

2. The venue of all events giving rise to this lawsuit is located in Broward

County, Florida. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(B) and rule 3.1 of Local Rules of 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, this is the 

designated court for this suit.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN, is a resident of the State of 

Florida. At the time of Plaintiff’s visit to Avant’s Automotive Repair, Inc. 

(“Subject Facility”), Plaintiff suffered from a “qualified disability” under the 

ADA, which substantially limits Plaintiff’s major life activities, including but 

not limited to walking, and requires the use of a mobility aid. The Plaintiff 

personally visited Avant’s Automotive Repair, Inc., but was denied full and 

equal access, and full and equal enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods, and 

amenities within Avant’s Automotive Repair, Inc., which is the subject of this 

lawsuit. The Subject Facility is an auto repair, and Plaintiff wanted to inquire 

about their services but was unable to due to the discriminatory barriers 

enumerated in Paragraph 15 of this Complaint.

4. In the alternative, Plaintiff, HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN, is an 

advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and is a “tester” for 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 2 of 15
3

the purpose of asserting his civil rights and monitoring, ensuring and 

determining whether places of public accommodation are in compliance with the 

ADA. 

5. Defendants, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, J. BATMASIAN and M. 

BATMASIAN are authorized to conduct business and are in fact conducting 

business within the State of Florida. The Subject Facility is located at 40 NW 

2nd Ave, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441. Upon information and belief, 

AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR is the lessee and/or operator of the Real Property and 

therefore held accountable of the violations of the ADA in the Subject Facility 

which is the matter of this suit. Upon information and belief, J. BATMASIAN

and M. BATMASIAN are the owners and lessors of the Real Property where the 

Subject Facility is located and therefore held accountable for the violations of 

the ADA in the Subject Facility which is the matter of this suit.

CLAIMS: VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

6. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 

through 5 of this complaint, as are further explained herein.

7. 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 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 Defendants had ten (10) or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 3 of 15
4

$500,000 or less. See 42 U.S.C. §12181; 28 C.F.R. §36.508(a).

8. As stated in 42 U.S.C. §12101(a) (1)-(3), (5) and (9), Congress found, 

among other things, that:

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

disability, and this number shall increase as the population continues to 

grow and age;

ii. 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 serious attention;

iii. 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;

iv. 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,

v. 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 this country 

is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in 

unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and non-productivity.

9. As stated in 42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)(2) and (4), 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 4 of 15
5

enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to 

address the major areas of discrimination faced on a daily basis by 

people with disabilities.

10. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7), and 28 CFR §36.104, Title III, no 

individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards 

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

accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who 

owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 

Avant’s Automotive Repair, Inc. is a place of public accommodation by the fact 

it is an establishment that provides goods/services to the general public, and 

therefore, must comply with the ADA. The Subject Facility is open to the 

public, its operations affect commerce, and it is a service establishment. See 42 

U.S.C. Sec. 12181 (7) and 28 C.F.R. 36.104. Therefore, the Subject Facility is a 

public accommodation that must comply with the ADA.

11. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate against 

the 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 at Avant’s Automotive Repair, Inc. located at 40 NW 

2nd Ave, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §12182, and 42 

U.S.C. §12101 et. seq.; by failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, 

practices, or procedures pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); and by 

failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 5 of 15
6

12. Plaintiff has visited the Subject Facility, and has been denied full, safe, 

and equal access to the facility and therefore suffered an injury in fact.

13. Plaintiff shall suffer a future injury as Plaintiff intends to return and 

enjoy the goods and/or services at the Subject Facility within the next six 

months. The Subject Facility is in close proximity to Plaintiff’s residence and is 

in an area frequently travelled by Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff will also 

return to monitor compliance with the ADA. However, Plaintiff is precluded 

from doing so by the Defendants' failure and refusal to provide people with 

disabilities with full and equal access to their facility. Therefore, Plaintiff 

continues to suffer from discrimination and injury due to the architectural 

barriers, which are in violation of the ADA.

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

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

Regulations to implement the requirements of the ADA. The ADA Accessibility 

guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, may cause 

violators to obtain civil penalties of up to $55,000 for the first violation and 

$110,000 for any subsequent violation. 

15. The Defendants are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12181 et. seq., and 28 

C.F.R. 36.302 et. seq., and are discriminating against the Plaintiff with the 

following specific violations which Plaintiff personally encountered and/or has 

knowledge of:

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 6 of 15
7

a) The parking facility at the auto repair shop does not provide a compliant 

accessible parking space. 2012 ADA Standards 502.1 

b) The parking facility does not have the minimum number of accessible 

parking spaces required. 2012 ADA Standards 208.2 

c) The customer parking facility in front of the business has ten (10) marked 

standard spaces and zero (0) accessible parking spaces. 2012 ADA 

Standards 208.2 

d) The parking facility does not have the minimum number of compliant 

accessible parking spaces required. One (1) accessible parking space with 

adjacent access aisle is required. 2012 ADA Standards 208.2 

e) The parking facility does not provide directional and informational 

signage to a compliant accessible parking space. 2012 ADA Standards 

216.5 

f) There is no compliant access aisle attached to an accessible route serving 

any existing parking space which would allow safe entrance or exit of 

vehicle for accessible persons requiring mobility devices. 2012 ADA 

Standards 502.2 

g) There is currently no existing accessible route to help persons with 

disabilities safely maneuver through the parking facilities. Accessible 

routes must connect parking spaces to accessible entrances. 2012 ADA 

Standards 502.3 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 7 of 15
8

h) Existing facility does not provide a compliant accessible route to the main 

auto repair shop office from any site arrival point. 2012 ADA Standards 

206.2, 208, 401.1 

i) The main repair shop office entrance is non-compliant. There is a vertical 

rise from the marked building walkway up to the main office door 

exceeding the maximum rise allowed. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high 

maximum are permitted to be vertical.2012 ADA Standards 302.2 

j) The walkway in front of the main entrance is too narrow. Maneuvering 

clearances must extend the full width of the doorway and the required 

latch side or hinge side clearance. 2012 Standards 404.2. 

k) The main customer entrance is non-compliant. There is a step up from the 

floor level up to the main office/waiting room door threshold exceeding 

the maximum rise allowed. 2012 ADA Standards 302.2 

l) The main customer entrance door has non-compliant knob-type door 

hardware. Operable parts must be operable with one hand and not require 

tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist. 2012 ADA Standards 

309.4 

m) The facility does not provide compliant directional and informational 

signage to an accessible route which would lead to an accessible entrance. 

Where not all entrances comply, compliant entrances must be identified 

by the International Symbol of Accessibility. Directional signs that 

indicate the location of the nearest compliant entrance must be provided 

at entrances that do not comply. 2012 ADA Standards 216.6

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 8 of 15
9

16. Upon information and belief there are other current violations of the ADA 

at Avant’s Automotive Repair, Inc. Only upon full inspection can all violations 

be identified. Accordingly, a complete list of violations will require an on-site 

inspection by Plaintiff’s representatives pursuant to Rule 34b of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

17. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that removal of the 

discriminatory barriers and violations is readily achievable and technically 

feasible. 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.

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

the Defendants were required to make the establishment a place of public 

accommodation, accessible to persons with disabilities by January 28, 1992. As 

of this date the Defendants have failed to comply with this mandate.

19. The Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned counsel for the 

filing and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff is entitled to have its reasonable 

attorney's fees, costs and expenses paid by the Defendants, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §12205.

20. 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 subject facilities 

to make them readily accessible and useable by individuals with disabilities to 

the extent required by the ADA, closing the Subject Facility until the requisite 

modifications are completed, entering an Order directed at maintenance and 

future compliance, and entering an Order for Defendants to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures.

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 9 of 15
10

COUNT I- DECLARATORY RELIEF

21. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth 

in paragraphs 1 through 20 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

22. Defendants have discriminated, and continue 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 at the Subject Facility, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §12182, and 

42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq.; by failing to make reasonable modifications in 

policies, practices, or procedures pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); and 

by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

23. Unless declared that the Subject Facility owned, operated and/or 

controlled by the Defendants is in violation of the ADA, Defendants shall 

continue 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 at the Subject Facility.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and 

requests that this Honorable Court declare that the Subject Facility owned, 

operated and/or controlled by the Defendants is in violation of Title III of the

ADA, and award reasonable attorney's fees, all costs (including, but not limited 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 10 of 15
11

to court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of suit, to Plaintiff.

COUNT II- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE ARCHITECTURAL 

BARRIERS

24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth 

in paragraphs 1 through 23 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

25. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants shall continue 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 at the Subject Facility by failing to remove 

architectural barriers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and 

requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to alter 

the Subject Facility and remove architectural barriers to make the Subject 

Facility accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full 

extent required by Title III of the ADA, and award reasonable attorney's fees, 

all costs (including, but not limited to court costs and expert fees) and other 

expenses of suit, to Plaintiff.

COUNT III- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO MODIFY POLICIES, 

PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

26. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 11 of 15
12

in paragraphs 1 through 25 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

27. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants shall continue 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 at the Subject Facility by failing to make 

reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and 

requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to 

evaluate, neutralize and modify their policies, practices and procedures as are 

necessary to make the Subject Facility accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities to the full extent required by Title III of the ADA, and award 

reasonable attorney's fees, all costs (including, but not limited to court costs 

and expert fees) and other expenses of suit, to Plaintiff.

COUNT IV- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE

28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth 

in paragraphs 1 through 27 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

29. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants shall continue to discriminate 

against Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, 

and full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 12 of 15
13

advantages and/or accommodations at the Subject Facility by failing to maintain 

compliance with the ADA by allowing physical alterations to revert back into 

noncompliance, and by failing to enforce any modifications in policies, 

practices, or procedures.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and 

requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to 

maintain the alterations and modifications required to keep the Subject Facility 

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities and in compliance with

Title III of the ADA, and award reasonable attorney's fees, all costs (including, 

but not limited to court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of suit, to 

Plaintiff.

Dated this August 31, 2022.

Respectfully submitted by:

Ronald E. Stern

Ronald E. Stern, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 10089

THE ADVOCACY LAW FIRM, P.A.

1250 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Suite 503

Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 639-7016

Facsimile: (954) 639-7198

E-Mail: ronsternlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 13 of 15
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AVANT'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, INC., 

a Florida Profit Corporation, JAMES H. 

BATMASIAN, and MARTA T. 

BATMASIAN, Individuals,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 31, 2022, I electronically filed the 

Complaint along with a Summons for each Defendant with the Clerk of Court 

using CM/ECF. I also certify that the aforementioned documents are being 

served on all counsel of record, corporations, or pro se parties identified on the 

attached Service List in the manner specified via Service of Process by an 

authorized Process Server, and that all future pleadings, motions and documents 

will be served either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated 

by CM/ECF or via U.S. Mail for those counsel or parties who are not authorized 

to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

By: Ronald E. Stern

Ronald E. Stern, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 10089

THE ADVOCACY LAW FIRM, P.A.

1250 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Suite 503

Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 639-7016

Facsimile: (954) 639-7198

E-Mail: ronsternlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 14 of 15
15

SERVICE LIST:

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN, Plaintiff, vs. AVANT'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, 

INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, JAMES H. BATMASIAN, and MARTA T. BATMASIAN, 

Individuals

United States District Court Southern District of Florida

CASE NO.

AVANT'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, INC.

REGISTERED AGENT:

AVANT, LONNIE

40 NW 2ND AVE

DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33441

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

JAMES H. BATMASIAN

215 N FEDERAL HWY 

BOCA RATON, FL 33432

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

MARTA T. BATMASIAN

215 N FEDERAL HWY 

BOCA RATON, FL 33432

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

Case 0:22-cv-61623-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 15 of 15