1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

RENZO BARBERI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRIENDLY MOTORS OF S FLORIDA 

LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company 

d/b/a WORLD AUTO CARE and IDS 

INVESTMENTS LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), through the undersigned counsel, hereby 

files this complaint and sues FRIENDLY MOTORS OF S FLORIDA LLC d/b/a WORLD 

AUTO CARE (“FRIENDLY MOTORS”) and IDS INVESTMENTS LLC (“IDS 

INVESTMENTS”) (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. §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

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 1 of 14
2

2. The venue of all events giving rise to this lawsuit is located in Miami-Dade 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, RENZO BARBERI, is a resident of the State of Florida. At the time of 

Plaintiff’s visit to World Auto Care Center (“Subject Facility”), Plaintiff suffered from a 

“qualified disability” under the ADA, and required the use of a wheelchair for mobility. 

Specifically, Plaintiff suffers from paraplegia due to a severed T4 and T5, and is therefore 

confined to his wheelchair. Plaintiff personally visited World Auto Care Center, but was denied 

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

amenities within World Auto Care Center, 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, RENZO BARBERI, is an advocate of the rights of similarly 

situated disabled persons and is a “tester” for 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, FRIENDLY MOTORS and IDS INVESTMENTS, are authorized to conduct 

business and are in fact conducting business within the State of Florida. The Subject Facility is 

located at 153 NE 167th Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162. Upon information and belief, 

FRIENDLY MOTORS 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, IDS INVESTMENTS is the owner and lessor 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 2 of 14
3

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 $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 nonproductivity.

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;

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 3 of 14
4

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 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. World 

Auto Care Center 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 World Auto Care 

Center located at 153 NE 167th Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162, 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).

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 4 of 14
5

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:

a) The customer parking facility for the business does not provide a compliant accessible 

parking space. 2012 ADA Standards 502.1 

b) The parking facility has six (6) marked standard spaces and one (1) non-compliant 

accessible parking space. 2012 ADA Standards 208.2 

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

spaces required. One (1) compliant accessible parking space with adjacent access aisle is 

required. 2012 ADA Standards 208.2 

d) The parking facility does not provide directional and informational signage to a 

compliant accessible parking space. 2012 ADA Standards 216.5 

e) The non-compliant accessible parking space has an access aisle that is painted inside a 

standard parking space. Each designated accessible parking space must have an adjacent 

access aisle. Parking access aisles must be part of an accessible route to the building or 

facility entrance. Access aisles must be placed adjacent to accessible parking spaces. All 

spaces must be located on an accessible route that is at least 44 inches wide so that users 

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 5 of 14
6

are not compelled to walk or wheel behind parked vehicles except behind his or her own 

vehicle. 2012 ADA Standards 502.2, 502.3 

f) The non-compliant accessible parking space identification striping is faded. Each such 

parking space must be striped in a manner that is consistent with the standards of FDOT 

for other spaces and prominently outlined with blue paint, and must be repainted when 

necessary, to be clearly distinguishable as a parking space designated for persons who 

have disabilities. 2012 ADA Standards 502.6.1

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

entrance from any site arrival point. 2012 ADA Standards 206.2, 208, 401.1 

h) 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 

i) There is currently no existing accessible route to help persons with disabilities enter the 

facility or safely maneuver through the parking area. At least one accessible route must 

be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger 

loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the 

accessible building or facility entrance they serve. 2012 ADA Standards 206.2.1 

j) A non-compliant ramp slopes from the asphalt drive area up to the main entrance door. 

The outside main entrance door requires a 60” x 60” level landing to allow persons with 

mobility issues to safely enter the building. Changes in level are not permitted. Such 

changes in level are prohibited in required clear floor and ground spaces, turning spaces, 

and in similar spaces where people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices must 

park their mobility aids such as in wheelchair spaces, or maneuver to use elements such 

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 6 of 14
7

as at doors, fixtures, and telephones. The exception permits slopes not steeper than 1:48. 

2010 ADA Standards 404.2.4.4 

k) Maneuvering clearances must extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch 

side or hinge side clearance. 2012 Standards 404.2. 

l) The auto repair shop customer entrance door has non-compliant panel-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

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

Care Center. 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 7 of 14
8

19. 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.

21. The Defendants’ Facility has architectural barriers which Plaintiff personally encountered 

and/or has knowledge of. 

22. Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures to ensure full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations at the Defendants’ Facility to Plaintiff, and similarly situated 

individuals with disabilities.

23. 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).

24. 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 8 of 14
9

25. 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.

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

COUNT II- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS

26. The Defendants’ Facility has architectural barriers which Plaintiff personally encountered 

and/or has knowledge of.

27. 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. 

28. 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).

29. 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 and closing the 

Subject Facility until the requisite modifications are completed.

30. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 9 of 14
10

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

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

31. The Defendants’ Facility has architectural barriers which Plaintiff personally encountered 

and/or has knowledge of. 

32. Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures to ensure full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations at the Defendants’ Facility to Plaintiff, and similarly situated 

individuals with disabilities.

33. 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).

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

injunctive relief, including an Order for Defendants to make reasonable modifications in policies, 

practices, or procedures.

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

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 10 of 14
11

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.

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

36. The Defendants’ Facility has architectural barriers which Plaintiff personally encountered 

and/or has knowledge of.

37. 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.

38. 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 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.

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

injunctive relief, including an Order directed at maintenance and future compliance, and entering 

an Order for Defendants to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures.

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 11 of 14
12

40. 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.

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 November 1, 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

Email: ronsternlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 12 of 14
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

RENZO BARBERI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRIENDLY MOTORS OF S FLORIDA 

LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company 

d/b/a WORLD AUTO CARE and IDS 

INVESTMENTS LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 1, 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

Email: ronsternlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff RENZO BARBERI

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 13 of 14
14

SERVICE LIST:

RENZO BARBERI, Plaintiff, vs. FRIENDLY MOTORS OF S FLORIDA LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company d/b/a WORLD AUTO CARE and IDS INVESTMENTS LLC, a 

Florida Limited Liability Company

United States District Court Southern District of Florida

CASE NO.

FRIENDLY MOTORS OF S FLORIDA LLC d/b/a WORLD AUTO CARE

REGISTERED AGENT:

VIEIRA, GILBERTO

2061 NW 112TH AVE

UNIT 139

MIAMI, FL 33172

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

IDS INVESTMENTS LLC

REGISTERED AGENT:

SHALTIEL, DAVID

153 NE 167TH ST

N MIAMI BEACH, FL 33162

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

Case 1:22-cv-23552-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 14 of 14