UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

PALLAR, L.C. and

EPIC RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. 

d/b/a OCEANS 234

 Defendants.

COMPLAINT

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

hereby files this Complaint and sues Defendants, PALLAR, L.C. and EPIC RESTAURANT 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a OCEANS 234 (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 restaurant located on or about 234 N. Ocean Blvd., 

Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 (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 0:22-cv-61728-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 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, PALLAR, L.C., is a Florida Limited Liability Company which is 

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

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

PALLAR, L.C., is the owner and/or operator/manager of the real property located on or 234 N. 

Ocean Blvd., Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 (hereinafter the “Subject Premises”). This is the 

building where the Subject Premises is located.

9. Defendant, EPIC RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., is a Florida Profit Corporation 

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

district.

10. According to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, the 

Defendant, EPIC RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., was licensed on January 15, 2013 to provide 

Case 0:22-cv-61728-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 2 of 8
Permanent Food Service and Seating and occupies 234 N. Ocean Blvd., Deerfield Beach, FL 

33441 as a restaurant known as “OCEANS 234”.

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 24, 2022 to 

eat dinner with friends 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61728-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 3 of 8
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the Federal Register to implement the 

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:

Symbols of Accessibility 

a) The main lobby entrance does not provide informational or directional 

signage with the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA) making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to identify the accessible entrance, in violation of

sections 216.4.3, 216.6, and 703.7.2.1 in the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

Dining Surfaces and Work Surfaces 

b) The tops of dining surfaces and work surfaces shall be 28 inches minimum 

and 34 inches maximum above the finish floor making it difficult for the 

plaintiff to utilize, in violation of Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Men’s Public Restroom 

c) The flush control is not located on the open side of the toilet making it 

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

ADA Standards, whose remediation is readily achievable.

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 lavatory does not provide knee clearance as required making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 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 0:22-cv-61728-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 4 of 8
f) The mirror exceeds the maximum height requirement of 40 inches above 

the finish floor making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of 

section 603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

g) The toilet compartment stall door does not provide a u-shaped loop handle 

on the inside of the door as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to 

utilize, in violation of section 604.8.1.2 in the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

h) 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.

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 

Case 0:22-cv-61728-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 5 of 8
composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity, and (10)geographic 

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 State 

Licensures on January 15, 2013, 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 0:22-cv-61728-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61728-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 7 of 8
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.

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 0:22-cv-61728-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 8 of 8