UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

FEDERAL PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LTD. 

and AUTOZONE STORES LLC,

 Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by his undersigned, 

hereby files this Complaint and sues Defendants, FEDERAL PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LTD. and 

AUTOZONE STORES LLC (hereinafter “Defendants”), for injunctive relief pursuant to the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., (hereinafter the “A.D.A”), the 

ADA’s Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36 (hereinafter the “ADAAG”), and the Florida 

Building Code.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C., §§1331 

and 1343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 12181. et seq., based upon Defendants’

violations of Title III of the ADA (see also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202). 

2. The subject property is a auto parts stores located on or about 1960 SE Federal 

Hwy., Stuart, FL 34994 (hereinafter “Subject Premises”).

3. All events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the State of Florida. Venue is 

proper in this Court as the premises are located in the Southern District.

Case 2:22-cv-14317-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 1 of 8
PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, is currently a resident of Fenwick, 

Michigan in the County of Montcalm, is sui juris, and is a qualified individual under the ADA

and the FACBC.

5. Plaintiff is a double leg amputee who uses prosthetic devices or a wheelchair to 

ambulate, a Marine Corps veteran with several friends, family, and colleagues in South Florida 

including a son who is a minor league baseball athlete in South Florida who he frequently visits. 

Additionally, Plaintiff enjoys the South Florida weather and the multiple sporting events, 

festivals, and events that occur throughout South Florida.

6. Despite the physical limitations to which he is subjected as a result of his 

disability, Plaintiff continues to lead a full life, frequently travels, dines out, and is also an 

actively social and independent individual.

7. Defendant, FEDERAL PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LTD., is a Florida Limited 

Partnership which is authorized to and does transact business in the State of Florida and within 

this judicial district.

8. Pursuant to the Martin County Property Appraiser’s Office, Defendant,

FEDERAL PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LTD., is the owner and/or operator/manager of the real 

property located on or 1960 SE Federal Hwy., Stuart, FL 34994 (hereinafter the “Subject 

Premises”). This is the building where the Subject Premises is located.

9. Defendant, AUTOZONE STORES LLC, is a Limited Liability Company which is 

authorized to and does transact business in the State of Florida and within this judicial district.

10. According to the Martin County Tax Collector’s Office, the Defendant, 

AUTOZONE STORES LLC, was licensed about 2015 and occupies 1960 SE Federal Hwy., 

Stuart, FL 34994 as an auto parts store known as “AUTOZONE”.

Case 2:22-cv-14317-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 2 of 8
11. The Subject Premises is owned and/or operated by the Defendants and is a public 

accommodation required by law to comply with the ADA and ADAAG.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIM

12. Plaintiff most recently visited the Subject Premises on or about July 26, 2022 to 

purchase fuel system cleaner and accessed to the extent possible, or attempted to access the 

Subject Premises and specific areas of the Subject Premises as described herein.

13. While visiting the Subject Premises, Plaintiff personally encountered or observed

several barriers to access in violation of the ADA and ADAAG as detailed further herein at 

Paragraph 17. As a result, Plaintiff has been denied access to the Subject Premises and full and 

equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered therein because of his disability and will 

continue to be denied such access as a result of those barriers.

14. Said barriers to access at the Subject Premises endanger the safety of Plaintiff and 

all other individuals with disabilities, deny Plaintiff and others with disabilities equal access to

the Subject Premises as to that of able-bodied persons, and causes social embarrassment due to 

the difficulties encountering such barriers to access—a social embarrassment that would not 

occur if the Subject Premises was in compliance with the ADA and ADAAG.

15. In encountering the barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and suffering the 

resulting discrimination, endangerment, and embarrassment—the Plaintiff sustained a lawful 

injury-in-fact pursuant to the ADA.

16. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on September 15, 2010, the 

Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, published revised regulations for Title III 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the Federal Register to implement the 

Case 2:22-cv-14317-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 3 of 8
requirements of the ADA. Public accommodations were required to conform to these regulations 

on or before March 15, 2012.1

17. A specific, although not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers, dangerous 

conditions and ADA violations which preclude and/or limit Plaintiff’s ability (because of his 

disability) to access the Facility and/or full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Facility include:

Accessible Routes

a) The front entrance doors do not provide compliant signage with the international 

symbol of accessibility (ISA) as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to 

identify the accessible door. In violation of Sections 216.6 and 703.7.2.1 in the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Accessible Parking 

b) The Acess aisle has a change of level greater then one qurter inch due to the great 

located in the isle. In violation of section 502.4 and 303 in the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose remedy is readily achievable.

Service Counter

c) The plaintiff had difficulty utilizing the front desk counter due to it exceeding the 

maximum height allowance of 36 inches above the floor to the top of the surface. 

In violation of Section 904.4.1 in the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

Public Restrooms

d) The plaintiff had to use caution when using the lavatory due to the drainpipe 

being fully exposed and not insulated as required making it difficult for the 

plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 606.5 in the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

e) The Plaintiff had difficulty utilizing the lavatory 

due to the lavatory being less than 27 inches above the finished floor 8 inches 

deep. Which does not provide compliance knee clearance as per Section 606.2 

and 306.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

1

“Safe Harbor. Elements that have not been altered in existing facilities on or after March 15, 2012, and that comply 

with the corresponding technical and scoping specification for those elements in the 1991 Standards are not required 

to be modified in order to comply with the requirements set forth in the 2010 Standards” 28 CFR §36.304(d)(2)(i), 

however, the violations described herein violate both the 1991 Standards as well as the 2010 Standards.

Case 2:22-cv-14317-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 4 of 8
Water Closet 

f) The flush control is located on the wrong side of the water closet making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 604.6 in the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

g) The side wall grab bar has objects mounted less than 12 inches above the grab bar 

making it difficult for the Plaintiff to utilize. In violation of Section 609.4.

h) The trash receptacle is obstructing the clear floor space for a forward approach to 

the paper towel dispenser making it difficult for the Plaintiff to utlize. In violation 

of sections and 305.5 and 305.6 in the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

18. The above listing is not to be considered all-inclusive of the barriers, conditions or 

violations encountered by Plaintiff and/or which exist at the Facility. Plaintiff requires an 

inspection of the Facility in order to photograph, measure and determine all of the discriminatory

acts violating the ADA. 

19. The removal of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations 

set forth herein is readily achievable and can be accomplished and carried out without much 

difficulty or expense pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(B)(2)(A)(iv); 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9); and 28 

C.F.R, § 36.304.

20. The ADA defines “readily achievable as “easily accomplishable and

without much difficult or expenses.”42 U.S.C. §12181(9) Congress included in the ADA factors 

to be considered in evaluating whether removal of a barrier is “readily achievable.” These factors 

are (1) nature and cost of the action; (2) overall financial resources of the facility or facilities 

involved; (3) number of persons employed at such facility; (4) effect on expenses and resources; 

(5) impact of such action upon the operation of the facility; (6) overall financial resources of the 

covered entity; (7) overall size of the business of a covered entity; (8) the number, type, and 

location of its facilities; (9) type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including 

composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity, and (10)geographic 

Case 2:22-cv-14317-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 5 of 8
separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the 

covered entity. Garthright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., 452 F. 3d 1269, 1272-73 (11th 

Cir. 2006). 

The obligation to engage in readily achievable barrier removal is a continuing one. Over 

time, barrier removal that initially was not readily achievable may later be required because of 

changed circumstances. DOJ ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual, Section III-4.4400 

Continuing obligation. 

21. Because, inter alia, this facility was designed, constructed, and received its 

Certificate of Occupancy in 2015, Plaintiff asserts that said ADA violations are intentional in 

nature and will not be corrected absent Court intervention, thus exacerbating the intentional legal 

harm and injury to which Plaintiff has been and will continue to be subjected in the future.

22. Plaintiff will undoubtedly return to the Subject Premises once the barriers to 

access have been remediated—not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the 

Subject Premises, but to confirm and assure himself that the Subject Premises has been brought 

into compliance with the ADA and maintained in compliance with the ADA so that Plaintiff and 

other persons with disabilities will have equal access to the Subject Premises without fear of 

discrimination, endangerment of their safety, or social and public embarrassment.

23. Independent of his personal desire to access this place of public accommodation

as required by law, Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated persons with 

disabilities and an advocate for asserting his own civil rights. However, Plaintiff is deterred

from returning to the Subject Premises as long as the Defendants continue to operate the Subject 

Premises in violation of the ADA and ADAAG.

Case 2:22-cv-14317-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 6 of 8
24. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, and continuing threat of discrimination by the

Defendants as long as the Subject Premises remains in non-compliance with the ADA.

25. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff and others with disabilities by 

denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations of the Facility, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C., § 12182, et. seq., 

and by failing to remove architectural barriers as required by 42 U.S.C., § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) 

and will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until 

Defendants are compelled to remove all physical barriers that exist at the Facility, including 

those specifically set forth herein, and make the Facility accessible to and usable by persons with 

disabilities, including Plaintiff.

26. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer direct and indirect injury as a result

of the ADA violations that exist at the Subject Premises and the actions or inactions described 

herein.

27. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm, and 

reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless and until 

Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA 

violations that exist at the Facility, including those set forth herein. 

28. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain undersigned counsel for the filing and

prosecution of this action. The Plaintiff is entitled to have his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs 

and expenses paid by the Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C., §§ 12205 and 12217.

29. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188(a), this Court is provided with authority to grant

injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including an order to alter the subject Facility to make it 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.

Case 2:22-cv-14317-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 7 of 8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue a permanent 

injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing is discriminatory practices, ordering 

Defendants to remove the physical barriers to access and alter the subject Facility to make it 

readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the 

ADA, closing the subject Facility until the barriers are removed and requisite alterations are 

completed, and awarding Plaintiff his reasonable attorney’s fees, expert fees, costs and litigation 

expenses incurred in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Glenn R. Goldstein

Glenn R. Goldstein, Esq. (FBN: 55873)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Glenn R. Goldstein & Associates, PLLC

8101 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 504

Miami, Florida 33138

(305) 900-2373

GGoldstein@G2Legal.net

s/ Lauren N. Wassenberg

Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. (FBN: 34083)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lauren N. Wassenberg & Associates, P.A.

1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 110

Boca Raton, FL 33431

(561) 571-0646

WassenbergL@gmail.com

Case 2:22-cv-14317-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 8 of 8