UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, Individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP., 

a Florida Corporation,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

Case No.

COMPLAINT

Injunctive Relief Demanded

Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, Individually, on his behalf and on behalf of all 

other mobility impaired individuals similarly situated, (sometimes referred to as “Plaintiff”), 

hereby sues the Defendant, R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP., a Florida Corporation (herein 

sometimes referred to as “Defendant”), for Injunctive Relief, and attorney’s fees, litigation 

expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 12181, et seq. 

(“ADA”).

1. Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, is an individual residing in Fenwick, MI, 

in the County of Montcalm. 

2. Defendant’s property, the Rooms to Go Outlet, is located at 1605 West Oakland 

Park Boulevard, Oakland Park, FL 33311, in the County of Broward.

3. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because venue lies in 

the judicial district of the property situs. 

4. The Defendant's property is located in and does business within this judicial 

district.

Case 0:22-cv-61761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 1 of 8
2

5. Pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 and 28 USC § 1343, this Court has been given 

original jurisdiction over actions which arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 12181, et seq. See also, 28 USC § 2201 and § 2202.

6. Rudolph Betancourt is a Michigan resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an 

individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. 

7. Mr. Betancourt is a double amputee who uses either prosthetic devices and/or a 

wheelchair for mobility. 

8. Mr. Betancourt regularly drives to South Florida from Michigan, where he 

resides. While driving from Michigan to South Florida, Mr. Betancourt regularly visits Oakland 

Park along his route to South Florida for vacations and to enjoy the area’s special beauty, 

including the shops and cultural venues and events offered generally. He also enjoys the 

beautiful beaches. He has friends and relatives in the nearby areas. His cousin, who he wants to 

visit, lives nearby and he also has many relatives and friends (including former Marines) in the 

Miami and Broward County areas.

9. Mr. Betancourt visited the subject property on July 24, 2022 which visit forms the 

basis of this lawsuit. 

10. Mr. Betancourt plans to return to the subject property in the near future, providing 

it is made accessible for his use to avail himself of the goods and services at the property, and to 

confirm the property is brought into compliance with the ADA. 

11. Mr. Betancourt intends to continue to return to the South Florida area on a regular 

basis. 

12. The barriers to access at the subject property have endangered his safety.

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

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

Case 0:22-cv-61761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 2 of 8
3

36.201(a) and 36.104. 

14. Defendant is responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. 

15. The place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, leases or 

leases to is known as the Rooms to Go Outlet, and is located at 1605 West Oakland Park 

Boulevard, Oakland Park, FL 33311..

16. Rudolph Betancourt has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of 

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

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

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

discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. 

18. Mr. Betancourt desires to visit The Rooms to Go Outlet, not only to avail himself 

of the goods and services available at the property, but to assure himself that the property is in 

compliance with the ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal 

enjoyment of the property without fear of discrimination.

19. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, by denying him access to, 

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

accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by 42 USC § 12182 et seq.

20. The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the 

Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by January 26, 

1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

$500,000 or less). 

1. A preliminary inspection of The Rooms to Go Outlet has shown that violations 

exist. These violations that Plaintiff has personally encountered or observed, and which were 

verified by an ADA expert, include but are not limited to:

Case 0:22-cv-61761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 3 of 8
4

Accessible Routes

a. The plaintiff had difficulty traversing to the entrance of the facility due to 

the column located in the middle of the walkway. In violation of Section 403.5.1 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

b. The interior accessible route is less than 36 inches wide in several areas of 

the store making it difficult for the plaintiff to navigate throughout the store. In violation 

of Section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Entrance

c. The facility does not provide signage with the international symbol of 

accessibility as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to locate the accessible 

entrance. In violation of Sections 216.6 and 703.7.2.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

d. The plaintiff had difficulty utilizing the service counter due to store 

merchandize obstructing the clear space needed for a parallel approach. In violation of 

Sections 305.3, 305.6, and 904.4.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable. 

Men’s Bathroom

e. The plaintiff had difficulty existing the men’s room due to the trash 

receptacle obstructing the 18 inches of clear floor space required at the pull side of the 

door. Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required 

latch side or hinge side clearance. In violation with Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

f. The plaintiff had difficulty reaching the paper towel dispenser due to the 

height of the operating mechanism exceeding the maximum height of 48 inches. In 

Violation to Section 308.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable. 

g. The plaintiff had difficulty utilizing the lavatory due to the existing knee 

clearance being less than 27 inches above the finished floor. In violation of Section 306.3 

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

h. The coat hook exceeds the maximum height of 48 inches as required, 

making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize. In violation of Sections 603.4, 308.2 and 

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

Case 0:22-cv-61761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 4 of 8
5

i. The toilet seat cover dispenser exceeds the maximum height allowance of 

48 inches making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize. In violation of Sections 308.2.1 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

j. The baby changing table operating mechanism to open is mounted above 

the maximum height of 48 inches, making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize. In 

violation of section 902.3 in the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable. 

21. All of the foregoing cited violations are violations of both the 1991 Americans 

with Disabilities Act Guidelines (ADAAG) and the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design, as 

adopted by the Department of Justice.

22. The discriminatory violations described in Paragraph 21. above are not an 

exclusive list of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requires the inspection of the 

Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the 

discriminatory acts violating the ADA and all of the barriers to access. The Plaintiff and all 

other individuals similarly situated have been denied access to, and have been denied the benefits 

of services, programs and activities of the Defendant’s buildings and its facilities, and have 

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

ADA violations, as set forth above. The 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 this 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.

23. Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying them access to full 

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

accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility in violation of 

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

Case 0:22-cv-61761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 5 of 8
6

discriminate against the 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 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.

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

Considering the balance of hardships between the Plaintiff and Defendant, a remedy in equity is 

warranted. Furthermore, the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. 

25. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled to recover attorney’s 

fees, costs and litigation expenses from the Defendant pursuant to 42 USC § 12205 and 

28 CFR 36.505.

26. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the 

physically disabled, when such removal is readily achievable for its place of public 

accommodation that has existed prior to January 26, 1992, 28 CFR 36.304(a); in the alternative, 

if there has been an alteration to Defendant’s place of public accommodation since January 26, 

1992, then the Defendant is required to ensure to the maximum extent feasible, that the altered 

portions of the facility are readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities, 

including individuals who use wheelchairs, 28 CFR 36.402; and finally, if the Defendant’s 

facility is one which was designed and constructed for first occupancy subsequent to January 26, 

1993, as defined in 28 CFR 36.401, then the Defendant’s facility must be readily accessible to 

and useable by individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA. 

27. 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 Defendant has 10 or fewer employees 

Case 0:22-cv-61761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 6 of 8
7

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

Plaintiff or waived by the Defendant.

28. Pursuant to 42 USC § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant 

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to require the Defendant to alter the The Rooms to 

Go Outlet to make those facilities readily accessible and useable to the Plaintiff and all other 

persons with disabilities as defined by the ADA; or by closing the facility until such time as the 

Defendant cures its violations of the ADA.

29. A PACER search has not shown any prior related ADA lawsuits in the Southern 

District of Florida.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

A. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant at the 

commencement of the subject lawsuit is in violation of Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 12181 et seq.

B. Injunctive relief against the Defendant, including an order to make all readily 

achievable alterations to the facility; or to make such facility readily accessible to and useable by 

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

C. An award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 USC 

§ 12205.

Case 0:22-cv-61761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 7 of 8
8

D. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

E. The Order shall further require the Defendant to maintain the required assessable 

features on an ongoing basis, and to require the institution of a policy that requires Defendant to 

maintain its accessible features on an ongoing basis.

Dated: September 20, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John P. Fuller

John P. Fuller, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0276847

FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502

North Miami, FL 33181

(305) 891-5199

(305) 893-9505 – Facsimile

jpf@fullerfuller.com

jpfuller17@gmail.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Rudolph Betancourt

Case 0:22-cv-61761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 8 of 8