1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.:

GARFIELD SPENCE

Plaintiff,

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

WATERSIDE PLAZA AT SUNRISE LLC.

Defendant.

/

 COMPLAINT

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

hereby files this Complaint and sues WATERSIDE PLAZA AT SUNRISE 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 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 1 of 14
2

that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Broward 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 8440 W Oakland Park 

Blvd, Sunrise, FL 33351 (“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 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 2 of 14
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 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 3 of 14
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 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 4 of 14
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 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 5 of 14
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 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 6 of 14
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 8436, due to a failure to enact a policy of proper grounds 

maintenance, there is foliage and dozens of seeds in the two accessible parking 

spaces. As a result, the ground surfaces of the two accessible parking spaces 

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 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 8436, the Property has an accessible ramp leading from the 

accessible parking space to the accessible entrances with a slope exceeding 1:12 

in violation of section 405.2 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 when ramps are too steep (more than 1:12) it requires too 

much physical arm strain to wheel up the ramp and increases the likelihood of 

the wheelchair falling backwards and Plaintiff being injured.

iii. In front of Unit 8450, due to the presence of grease holding pits and covers 

which intrude into the surface of the accessible parking spaces, the two 

Case 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 7 of 14
8

accessible parking spaces and associated access aisle have vertical rises in 

excess of 1⁄4 inch and unlevel surfaces 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.

iv. In front of Unit 8450, due to the presence of grease holding pits and covers 

intruding into the surface of the accessible parking spaces and access aisle, the 

two accessible parking spaces and associated access aisle have in these areas 

running slopes and cross slopes in excess of 1:48 in violation of Section 502.4 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards and are not level. This barrier to access would 

make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while 

parked at the Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair may roll down the slope while 

entering or exiting the vehicle.

v. In front of Unit 8450, due to an inadequate policy of parking lot maintenance 

or a lack thereof, the two accessible parking spaces are not adequately marked 

so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces and the 

presence of an access aisle, as there are multiple faded lines in the accessible 

parking space and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 and 502.2 of the 

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

Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to 

unknowingly park in the accessible parking space decreasing the available 

width to Plaintiff.

Case 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 8 of 14
9

vi. In front of Unit 8450, the Property has an accessible ramp leading from the 

accessible parking space to the accessible entrances with a slope exceeding 1:12 

in violation of section 405.2 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 when ramps are too steep (more than 1:12) it requires too 

much physical arm strain to wheel up the ramp and increases the likelihood of 

the wheelchair falling backwards and Plaintiff being injured.

vii. In front of Unit 8450, the Property has an accessible ramp with a cross slope 

steeper than 1:48 in violation of section 405.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access exposes Plaintiff to increased danger of tipping over as a 

cross-slope in excess of 1:48 is dangerous, and this excessive cross-slope is 

made even more dangerous given the fact it is on a sloped surface of a ramp.

viii. In front of Unit 8450, the Property has an accessible ramp lacking edge 

protection on both sides of the ramp in violation of in violation of section 405.9 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would expose Plaintiff to 

increased risk of injury for if the wheelchair should fall of the side edge of the 

ramp, the lack of edge protection may cause Plaintiff to tip and incur injury.

ix. In front of Unit 8456, due to an inadequate policy of parking lot maintenance 

or a lack thereof, at least one accessible parking space is not adequately marked 

so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking spaces and the 

presence of an access aisle and is therefore in violation of Section 502.1 and 

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

difficult for Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking space and may cause other 

Case 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 9 of 14
10

vehicles to unknowingly park in the accessible parking space decreasing the 

available width to Plaintiff.

x. In front of Unit 8456, the Property has an accessible ramp that lacks finished 

edges or edge protection and/or is otherwise in violation of section 405.9 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would exposes Plaintiff to 

increased risk of injury for if the wheelchair should fall of the side edge of the 

ramp, the lack of edge protection would likely cause Plaintiff to tip and incur 

injury.

xi. In front of Unit 8440, due to a policy of having numerous tables and chairs 

located in the exterior accessible route and not enacting a policy of ensuring the 

tables and chairs do not block the exterior accessible route, the clear width of 

the exterior accessible route in front of Unit 8440 lacks a clear 36 inch pathway 

in violation of section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to properly utilize public features at 

the Property because the width of Plaintiff’s wheelchair would prevent passage 

through areas with a width less than 36 inches. Moreover, due to the five inch 

drop-off into the parking lot, this barrier to access greatly increases the danger 

of the wheelchair tipping over the drop-off causing injury to Plaintiff.

xii. Due to the barrier to access identified in (xi) above, the Property lacks an 

accessible route connecting accessible facilities, accessible elements and/or 

accessible spaces of the Property in violation of section 206.2.2 of the 2010 

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

to access public features of the Property.

Case 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 10 of 14
11

xiii. Inside El Patio Columbian Restaurant, there are sales and services counters 

lacking any portion of the counter that has a maximum height of 36 (thirty-six) 

inches from the finished floor in violation of section 904.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards, all portions of the sales and service counter exceed 36 (thirty-six) 

inches in height from the finished floor. This barrier to access would make it 

difficult for Plaintiff to properly transact business at the Property as Plaintiff is 

in a wheelchair which makes his height much lower than a standing individual, 

so a surface with a maximum height of 36 inches above the finished floor is 

necessary for Plaintiff to sign credit card receipts.

xiv. Inside El Patio Columbian Restaurant, due to a policy of placing shelving in 

front of the sales counter, the sales and services counter lacks appropriate clear 

floor space in violation of section 305.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

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

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

EL PATIO COLUMBIAN RESTAURANT RESTROOMS

i. The restroom lacks signage in compliance with sections 216.8 and 703 of the 

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

Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to locate accessible restroom facilities.

ii. The door exiting the restroom lacks a clear minimum maneuvering clearance, 

due to the proximity of the door hardware within 18 inches to the adjacent wall, 

in violation of Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

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

Case 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 11 of 14
12

safely exit the restroom due to the fact individuals in wheelchairs have their feet 

sticking out in front of them and when there is inadequate clearance near the 

door (less than 18 inches), their protruding feet block their ability to reach the 

door hardware to open the door.

iii. The locking mechanism of 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.

iv. The actionable mechanism of the paper towel dispenser in the restroom is 

located outside the maximum prescribed vertical reach range of 48 inches above 

the finished floor as set forth in section 308.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

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

individual to reach the actionable mechanism of the paper towel dispenser as 

individuals in wheelchairs are seated and have significantly less reach range 

than individuals who stand up.

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 

Case 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 12 of 14
13

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 

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 

Case 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 13 of 14
14

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: September 19, 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 0:22-cv-61749-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 14 of 14