1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.:

GARFIELD SPENCE

Plaintiff,

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

WEST PALM REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC.

Defendant.

/

 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, GARFIELD SPENCE (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, 

hereby files this Complaint and sues WEST PALM REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC. (referred to 

as “Defendant”) a for profit company, for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, 

expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq., and the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and alleges as 

follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under Title 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq., based on 

Defendant’s violations of Title III of the ADA. See also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, as well as the 2010 

ADA Standards.

2. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(B) and Internal 

Operating Procedures for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 1 of 13
2

that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, GARFIELD SPENCE is sui juris and is a resident of the State of 

Florida.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and/or

lessor of the Real Property, which is subject to this suit, and is located at 2905 N Military Trail, 

West Palm Beach, FL 33417 (“Premises”), and is the owner of the improvements where 

Premises is located.

5. Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the 

state of Florida.

6. Plaintiff is an individual with numerous disabilities and is a double amputee 

which results in absolutely no use of the legs and requires him to use and remain in a wheelchair. 

The above listed disability and symptoms cause sudden onsets of severe pain and substantially 

limit Plaintiff’s major life activities. At the time of Plaintiff’s visit to the Premises in September

of 2022 (and prior to instituting this action), Plaintiff suffered from a “qualified disability” under 

the ADA, and required the use of fully accessible parking spaces and fully accessible paths of 

travel throughout the facility. Plaintiff personally visited the Premises, but was denied full and

equal access and full and equal enjoyment of the facilities and amenities within the Premises, 

even though he would be classified as a “bona fide patron”.

7. Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, will absolutely return to the Premises and 

avail himself of the services offered when Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the 

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 2 of 13
3

policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities.

8. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is 

aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, 

and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination.

9. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a 

result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the 

requirements of the ADA.

10. Plaintiff would like to be able to be a patron of the Premises in the future and be 

able to enjoy the goods and services that are available to the able-bodied public, but is currently 

precluded from doing so as a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct as described herein. 

Plaintiff will continue to be precluded from using the Premises until corrective measures are 

taken at the Premises to eliminate the discrimination against persons with physical disabilities.

11. Completely independent of the personal desire to have access to this place of 

public accommodation free of illegal barriers to access, Plaintiff also acts as a “tester” for the 

purpose of discovering, encountering and engaging discrimination against the disabled in public 

accommodations. When acting as a “tester”, Plaintiff employs a routine practice. Plaintiff 

personally visits the public accommodation; engages all of the barriers to access, or at least of 

those that Plaintiff is able to access; tests all of those barriers to access to determine whether and 

the extent to which they are illegal barriers to access; proceeds with legal action to enjoin

such discrimination; and subsequently returns to Premises to verify its compliance or noncompliance with the ADA and to otherwise use the public accommodation as members of the 

able-bodied community are able to do. Independent of other subsequent visits, Plaintiff also 

intends to visit the Premises regularly to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, 

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 3 of 13
4

and its maintenance of the accessible features of Premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in 

Plaintiff’s individual capacity and as a “tester”, visited Premises, encountered barriers to access 

at Premises, and engaged and tested those barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will 

continue to suffer such harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access and the ADA 

violations set forth herein. It is Plaintiff’s belief that said violations will not be corrected without 

Court intervention, and thus Plaintiff will suffer legal harm and injury in the near future.

12. Plaintiff, in his capacity as a tester, will absolutely return to the Premises when 

Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the policies and practices to accommodate 

individuals who have physical disabilities to confirm said modifications have been completed 

in accordance with the requirements of the ADA.

VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

13. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 12 

above as if fully stated herein.

14. 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 (1.5) 

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 Defendant(s) have ten (10) or fewer 

employees and gross receipts of $500,000.00 or less. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182; 28 C.F.R. § 

36.508(a).

15. Congress found, among other things, that:

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

and this number shall increase as the population continues to grow older;

b. historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with 

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 4 of 13
5

disabilities and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination 

against disabled individuals continue to be a pervasive social problem, requiring 

serious attention;

c. 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;

d. 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,

e. 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 our country is justifiably famous, and 

accosts the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting 

from dependency and non-productivity.

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

f. provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

g. provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination 

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 5 of 13
6

against individuals with disabilities; and

h. 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 basis by people with disabilities.

U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

17. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(7), 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 and the 2010 ADA

Standards, Defendant’s Premises is a place of public accommodation covered by the ADA by the 

fact it provides services to the general public and must be in compliance therewith.

18. Defendant has discriminated and continues 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 located at the Premises, as 

prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 and 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq., and by failing to remove 

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

19. Plaintiff has visited Premises, and has been denied full and safe equal access to 

the facilities and therefore suffered an injury in fact.

20. Plaintiff would like to return and enjoy the goods and/or services at Premises on 

a spontaneous, full and equal basis. However, Plaintiff is precluded from doing so by the 

Defendant’s failure and refusal to provide disabled persons with full and equal access to its

facilities. Therefore, Plaintiff continues to suffer from discrimination and injury due to the architectural 

barriers that are in violation of the ADA.

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

Department of Justice, Officer of the Attorney General promulgated Federal Regulations to 

implement the requirements of the ADA. See 28 C.F.R. § 36 and its successor the 2010 ADA 

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 6 of 13
7

Standards ADA Accessibility guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. § 36, 

under which said Department may obtain civil penalties of up to $55,000.00 for the first violation 

and $110,000.00 for and subsequent violation.

22. Based on a preliminary inspection of the Premises, Defendants are in violation of

42 USC § 12182 et. seq. and the 2010 American Disabilities Act Standards et. seq., and is 

discriminating against Plaintiff as a result of but not limited to, inter alia, the following specific

violations:

i. In front of Unit 2885H, due to a failure to enact a policy of proper grounds 

maintenance, there is a buildup of dirt and debris in the accessible space. As a 

result, the ground surfaces of the accessible space have vertical rises in excess 

of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have broken or 

unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section 502.4, 302 and 303 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

ii. In front of Unit 2885C, there is a vertical rise at the base of the accessible ramp

leading from the accessible parking space that is in excess of a 1⁄4 of an inch, in 

violation of Section 303.2 and 405.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access 

public features of the Property when using this accessible ramp as vertical rises 

on ramps are particularly dangerous as the surface of the ramp is already at a 

significant slope which increases the likelihood of the wheelchair to tip over 

due to the vertical rise.

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 7 of 13
8

iii. Across the vehicular way from Unit 2885J, the access aisles to the two 

accessible parking spaces have a cross slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of 

section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and is not level. This barrier to 

access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to enter and exit the 

vehicle as a level surface is needed so the wheelchair does not tip over and 

injure Plaintiff as excessive cross-slopes increases the likelihood of Plaintiff’s 

wheelchair tipping over on its side and injuring Plaintiff.

iv. Across the vehicular way from Unit 2885J, the access aisles to the two 

accessible parking spaces have vertical rises in excess of 1⁄4 inch and is in 

violation of Sections 303.2 and 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and 

enter their vehicle while parked at the Property as well as make it difficult for 

Plaintiff to travel to the public accommodations offered at the Property as the 

vertical rise could cause the tire of the wheelchair to get snagged or impede 

movement.

v. Across the vehicular way from the Presto ATM, due to a failure to enact a policy 

of proper grounds maintenance, there is a gouge in the accessible space. As a 

result, the ground surfaces of the accessible space have vertical rises in excess 

of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have broken or 

unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section 502.4, 302 and 303 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 8 of 13
9

vi. Across the vehicular way from Unit 2901, due to a failure to enact a policy of 

proper grounds maintenance, there is a gouge in the accessible space. As a 

result, the ground surfaces of the accessible space have vertical rises in excess 

of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have broken or 

unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section 502.4, 302 and 303 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

vii. Across the vehicular way from Unit 2901, due to a failure to enact a policy of 

proper grounds maintenance, there is a gouge in the accessible space. This 

gauge has indentations which promote puddling, which represents a slipping 

hazard and is in violation of Sections 502.4 and 302.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for 

Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property.

viii. Across the vehicular way from Unit 2901, due to the lack of a nearby accessible 

ramp, the two accessible parking spaces are not located on the shortest distance 

to the accessible route leading to the accessible entrances in violation of section 

208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to access would make it 

difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property from 

these accessible parking spaces as the far location increases the likelihood of 

traversing into the vehicular way and getting struck by a vehicle or encountering 

a barrier to access which stops Plaintiff from accessing the public 

accommodations offered at the Property.

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 9 of 13
10

ix. On the exterior access route in front of Units 2919C, 2919D, 2919E as well as 

Pizzaroma, the walking surfaces of the accessible route have a cross slope in 

excess of 1:48, in violation of section 403.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to 

access the units of the Property because excessive cross-slope along accessible 

routes increases the likelihood of Plaintiff’s wheelchair tipping over on its side 

and injuring Plaintiff.

x. Inside Art of Boba, there is not at least 5% (five percent) of the dining surfaces 

provided for consumption of food or drink which complies with section 902.3 

requiring the maximum height of the dining surface to be maximum 34 (thirtyfour) inches above the finished floor in violation of section 226.1 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards.

xi. Inside Art of Boba, there is not at least 5% (five percent) of the dining surfaces 

provided for consumption of food or drink that comply with Section 902.2 of 

the 2010 ADAAG standards, requiring appropriate knee and toe clearance 

complying with Section 306 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, positioned for a 

forward approach, in violation of Section 226.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

If Plaintiff were to eat at the Property in the future, this barrier to access would 

prevent Plaintiff from using the dining surfaces currently present as Plaintiff’s 

own feet would block Plaintiff’s ability to access the dining surfaces.

xii. At the accessible entrances to Units 2919 B, 2919 C and 2919 D, the 

maneuvering clearance of these accessible entrances are not level (surface slope 

in excess of 1:48) in violation of Section 404.2.4.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 10 of 13
11

standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access 

this unit of the Property since it is often necessary for individuals in wheelchairs 

to need to use their hands to both wheel through the doorway and keep the door 

open with another hand. When the maneuvering clearance is not level, this 

ordinarily difficult process is made even more difficult by the inappropriately 

higher slope.

xiii. Due to the barrier to access referenced in (xii), not all entrance doors and 

doorways comply with section 404 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, this is a 

violation of section 206.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

would make it difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to access the interior of the 

Property.

xiv. Defendant fails to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that all 

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

ART OF BOBA RESTROOMS

i. The door hardware providing access to the restrooms requires tight grasping and 

twisting of the wrist in violation of Section 404.2.7 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled 

individual to utilize the restroom facilities.

ii. Due to the placement of shelf with cleaning supplies stored on it within 12” 

above and in front of the rear grab bar, there is inadequate space between the 

grab bar and objects placed above the grab bar in violation of section 609.3 of 

the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

Plaintiff to safely transfer from the wheelchair to the toilet and back.

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 11 of 13
12

23. To the best of Plaintiff’s belief and knowledge, Defendant has failed to eliminate 

the specific violations set forth in paragraph 22 herein.

24. Although Defendant is charged with having knowledge of the violations, 

Defendant may not have actual knowledge of said violations until this Complaint makes 

Defendant aware of same.

25. 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.

26. As the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises, Defendants are required 

to comply with the ADA. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, existed and were 

occupied prior to January 26, 1992, the owner, lessor, lessee or operator has been under a 

continuing obligation to remove architectural barriers at the Premises where removal was readily 

achievable, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.402.

27. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, were constructed for occupancy 

after January 26, 1993 the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises was under an 

obligation to design and construct such Premises such that it is readily accessible to and usable 

by individuals with disabilities, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.401.

28. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of 

this action. Plaintiff is entitled to have his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid 

by Defendant, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

29. All of the above violations are readily achievable to modify in order to bring 

Premises or the Facility/Property into compliance with the ADA.

30. In instance(s) where the 2010 ADAAG standard does not apply, the 1991 

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 12 of 13
13

ADAAG standard applies and all of the violations listed in paragraph 22 herein can be applied 

to the 1991 ADAAG standards.

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

Plaintiff’s injunctive relief, including an order to alter the subject facility to make them 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.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and requests the 

following injunctive and declaratory relief:

1. That this Court declares that Premises owned, operated and/or controlled by 

Defendants are in violation of the ADA;

2. That this Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to alter their facilities to 

make them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full 

extent required by Title III of the ADA;

3. That this Court enter an Order directing the Defendants to evaluate and neutralize 

their policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such 

reasonable time so as to allow the Defendants to undertake and complete 

corrective procedures to Premises;

4. That this Court award reasonable attorney’s fees, all costs (including, but not 

limited to the court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of suit to the 

Plaintiff; and,

5. That this Court award such other and further relief as it may deem necessary, just 

and proper.

Dated: October 3, 2022

/ s / A l b e r t o R . L e al . 

Alberto R. Leal, Esq., P.A.

Florida Bar No.: 1002345

8927 Hypoluxo Rd. #157

Lake Worth, FL 33467

Phone: 954-637-1868

E-Mail: albertolealesq@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81525-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 13 of 13