1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BANNER CAR CARE & TIRE CENTER 

OF POMPANO, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company d/b/a BANNER TIRE 

and HENRY OLINGER, INC., a Florida 

Profit Corporation,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

counsel, hereby files this complaint and sues BANNER CAR CARE & TIRE CENTER OF 

POMPANO, LLC d/b/a BANNER TIRE (“BANNER”) and HENRY OLINGER, INC.

(“OLINGER”) (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 

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 1 of 15
2

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 Banner Car Care & Tire Center (“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. Plaintiff personally 

visited Banner Car Care & Tire Center, but was denied full and equal access, and full and equal 

enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods, and amenities within Banner Car Care & Tire Center, 

which is the subject of this lawsuit. The Subject Facility is a tire store and an auto repair, and 

Plaintiff wanted to purchase tires and 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 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, BANNER and OLINGER, are authorized to conduct business and are in fact 

conducting business within the State of Florida. The Subject Facility is located at 4141 N Federal 

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 2 of 15
3

Highway, Pompano Beach, FL 33064. Upon information and belief, BANNER 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, OLINGER 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 

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;

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 3 of 15
4

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;

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. Banner Car 

Care & Tire 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 sales and 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 Plaintiff, and 

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 4 of 15
5

others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Banner Car Care & Tire 

Center located at 4141 N Federal Highway, Pompano Beach, FL 33064, 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).

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. 

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 5 of 15
6

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 Plaintiff with the following specific violations which Plaintiff 

personally encountered and/or has knowledge of:

a) The parking facility at the auto tire and 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) At time of inspection, alongside of business there were eight standard parking spaces and 

zero (0) accessible parking spaces. One (1) accessible parking space with adjacent access 

aisle is required. 2010 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 

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

repair shop office from any site arrival point. 2012 ADA Standards 206.2, 208, 401.1 

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 6 of 15
7

i) The main tire and repair shop office entrance is non-compliant. There is a ramp rising from 

the parking lot up to the building sidewalk. The ramp is too steep. Ramp runs must have a

running slope not steeper than 1:12 (8.3%). 2012 ADA Standards 405.2 

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

sidewalk to the main office door threshold exceeding the maximum rise allowed. Changes 

in level of 1/4 inch high maximum are permitted to be vertical. 2012 ADA Standards 302.2 

k) 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 Banner Car 

Care & Tire 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 7 of 15
8

with disabilities by January 28, 1992. As of this date the Defendants have failed to comply with 

this mandate.

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.

COUNT I- DECLARATORY RELIEF

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 

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 8 of 15
9

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.

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.

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 9 of 15
10

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 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 10 of 15
11

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 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 11 of 15
12

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 maintain reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures.

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 12 of 15
13

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 September 12, 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-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 13 of 15
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BANNER CAR CARE & TIRE CENTER 

OF POMPANO, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company d/b/a BANNER TIRE 

and HENRY OLINGER, INC., a Florida 

Profit Corporation,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 12, 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.

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-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 14 of 15
15

SERVICE LIST:

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN vs. BANNER CAR CARE & TIRE CENTER OF 

POMPANO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company d/b/a BANNER TIRE and HENRY 

OLINGER, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation

United States District Court Southern District of Florida

CASE NO.

BANNER CAR CARE & TIRE CENTER OF POMPANO, LLC d/b/a BANNER TIRE

REGISTERED AGENT:

KRILL, JAMES

4141 N FEDERAL HIGHWAY

POMPANO BEACH, FL 33064

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

HENRY OLINGER, INC.

REGISTERED AGENT:

OLINGER, MICHAEL HSR.

1499 VERMEER DR.

NOKOMIS, FL 34275

VIA PROCESS SERVER

Case 0:22-cv-61709-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 15 of 15