UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

DANIEL LUGO, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 CASE NO. 

 

TIDE OCEAN FRONT 

VACATION APARTMENTS, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, Daniel Lugo, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby 

sues the Defendant, TIDE OCEAN FRONT VACATION APARTMENTS, LLC, 

for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§12181, et seq. (the "ADA") and in support thereof states as follows: 

JURISDICTION 

1. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction since this action arises 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and §1343 and Plaintiff’s claims arise under 42 

U.S.C. §12181 et seq. based upon Defendant's violations of Title III of the ADA. 

VENUE

 2. Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

(2) because Defendant is a resident of this district and the facility, whose online 

reservation system is at issue herein, is situated in this district. 

Case 9:22-cv-81582-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 1 of 8
2

PARTIES 

 3. Plaintiff, Daniel Lugo, is an individual who is over eighteen years of 

age and sui juris. Plaintiff is disabled as such term is defined by the ADA and is 

substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities due to 

permanent damage to his spinal cord as a result of a broken neck caused by a 

motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff must use a wheelchair to ambulate. Plaintiff also 

has limited use of his hands and fingers. Defendant's online lodging reservation 

system fails to comply with any of the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e) and 

therefore Plaintiff's full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered thereon are restricted and 

limited because of Plaintiff’s disability and will be restricted in the future unless 

and until Defendant is compelled to cure the substantive ADA violations contained 

on its online reservation system. Plaintiff intends to visit the online reservation 

system for Defendant's place of lodging in the near future, and within thirty (30) 

days, to book a place of lodging and utilize the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations being offered and/or to test the 

online reservation system for compliance with 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e). 

 4. Defendant is the owner and/or operator of the Tide Ocean Front 

Vacation Apartments, located at 2800 North Surf Road in Hollywood, Florida 

("the Tide"). The online reservation system for the Tide is found at 

Case 9:22-cv-81582-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 2 of 8
3

tidevacation.com (the "ORS"). 

CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE ADA 

 5. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA explaining that the 

purpose of the ADA was to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate 

for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to 

provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing said 

discrimination, invoking the sweep of congressional authority in order to address 

the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities to 

ensure that the Federal government plays a central role in enforcing the standards 

set by the ADA. (42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)-(4)). 

 6. 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 of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 in the 

Federal Register to implement the requirements of the ADA. Public 

accommodations, including places of lodging, were required to conform to these 

regulations on or before March 15, 2012. 

 7. On March 15, 2012, new regulations implementing Title III of the 

ADA took effect, imposing significant new obligations on inns, motels, hotels and 

other "places of lodging". 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e) states: 

 ''(1) Reservations made by places of lodging. A public accommodation that 

owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of lodging shall, with respect to 

Case 9:22-cv-81582-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 3 of 8
4

reservations made by any means, including by telephone, in-person, or through a 

third party - 

(i) Modify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that individuals with 

disabilities can make reservations for accessible guest rooms during the same hours 

and in the same manner as individuals who do not need accessible rooms; 

(ii) Identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered 

through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably 

permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel 

or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs;1

(iii) Ensure that accessible guest rooms are held for use by individuals with 

disabilities until all other guest rooms of that type have been rented and the 

accessible room requested is the only remaining room of that type; 

(iv) Reserve, upon request, accessible guest rooms or specific types of guest rooms 

and ensure that the guest rooms requested are blocked and removed from all 

reservations systems; and 

(v) Guarantee that the specific accessible guest room reserved through its 

reservations service is held for the reserving customer, regardless of whether a 

specific room is held in response to reservations made by others." 

 8. The Tide is a place of public accommodation that owns and/or leases 

and operates a place of lodging pursuant to the ADA. On the Tide’s ORS, potential 

patrons may reserve a place of lodging. The ORS is subject to the requirements of 

28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e) and Defendant is responsible for said compliance. 

 9. Most recently, during October, 2022 Plaintiff attempted to specifically 

identify and book a guaranteed reservation for an accessible place of lodging at the 

1 The United States Department of Justice, in "28 C.F.R. Appendix A to Part 36, Guidance on Revisions to ADA 

Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities", 

provides a section-by-section analysis of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1). In its analysis and guidance, the Department of 

Justice's official comments state that "information about the Hotel should include, at a minimum, information about 

accessible entrances to the hotel, the path of travel to guest check-in and other essential services, and the accessible 

route to the accessible room or rooms. In addition to the room information described above, these hotels should 

provide information about important features that do not comply with the 1991 Standards." An agency's 

interpretation of its own regulations, such as the Department of Justice's interpretation of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1), 

must be given "substantial deference" and "controlling weight" unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with 

the regulation." Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994).

Case 9:22-cv-81582-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 4 of 8
5

Tide through the ORS but was unable to do so due to Defendant's failure to comply 

with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7. 

 10. Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled 

persons and, pursuant to Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 

(11th Cir. 2013), is a "tester" for the purpose of asserting his civil rights, 

monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation, 

including online reservation systems for places of lodging, are in compliance with 

the ADA. 

 11. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him access 

to and full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and accommodations offered at the Tide through the ORS due to the 

substantive ADA violations contained thereon. Plaintiff has suffered, and 

continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation as the result of the discriminatory 

conditions present on the ORS. Defendant contributes to Plaintiff's sense of 

isolation and segregation by the continued operation of the ORS with 

discriminatory conditions. 

 12. The ORS encountered by Plaintiff when he visited it failed to comply 

with any of the requirements of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1). When Plaintiff visited the 

ORS, he tried to make reservations for an accessible place of lodging at the Tide, 

since he requires an accessible place of lodging due to his inability to walk, but it 

Case 9:22-cv-81582-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 5 of 8
6

was not possible to make such a reservation. It was possible to reserve a place of 

lodging that was not accessible. For this reason Defendant has no policy, practice, 

or procedure in place to ensure that individuals with disabilities can make 

reservations for accessible places of lodging during the same hours and in the same 

manner as individuals who do not need accessible places of lodging. This 

constitutes a violation of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1)(i). When Plaintiff visited the 

ORS, he searched the site for the identification and descriptions of accessible 

features at the Tide and places of lodging offered through the ORS so that he could 

assess independently whether the Tide or a specific place of lodging at the Tide 

met his accessibility needs in light of his disability but the ORS contained no such 

descriptions at all. This constitutes a violation of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1)(ii). In 

light of the foregoing, Defendant also necessarily violated 28 C.F.R. 

§36.302(e)(1)(iii)-(v) in that since the ORS does not describe any accessible place 

of lodging and does not, in turn, allow the reserving of such accessible place of 

lodging, the Website cannot hold such unavailable accessible places of lodging in 

the ORS until all other units have been rented, block such unavailable accessible 

places of lodging from the system once reserved, and guaranty that such 

unavailable accessible places of lodging will be held for the reserving customer as 

required by sections (iii) - (v) respectively. 

Case 9:22-cv-81582-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 6 of 8
7

 13. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law and is suffering 

irreparable harm and he reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer 

irreparable harm unless and until Defendant is required to correct the ADA 

violations to the ORS and maintain it and accompanying policies in a manner that 

is consistent with and compliant with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e). 

 14. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and 

prosecution of this action and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs 

and expenses from Defendant, including litigation expenses and costs pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. §12205. 

 15. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), this Court is provided with authority 

to grant injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including an Order compelling Defendant to 

implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to accommodate the disabled, by 

requiring Defendant to alter and maintain the ORS in accordance with the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 7 above.2

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Daniel Lugo, requests that the Court issue a 

permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing its discriminatory 

2 The injunction, to be meaningful and fulfill its intended purpose, should require Defendant to develop, and strictly 

enforce, a policy requiring regular monitoring of the ORS. As rates and classes of the places of lodging at the Tide 

and the number and type of rooms, beds, accommodations and amenities offered in the various unit types change 

from time to time, the availability of accessible units must be re-dispersed across these various price points, classes, 

as well as across units with disparate features (2010 ADA Standard 224.5). In light of the foregoing, in addition to 

regular ongoing website maintenance and to reflect physical changes at the Tide, the ORS must continuously be 

updated to properly reflect and describe Defendant's compliance with the substantive ADA Standards regarding 

accessible places of lodging in accordance with 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(1).

Case 9:22-cv-81582-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 7 of 8
8

practices, ordering Defendant to implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to 

accommodate the disabled, through requiring Defendant to alter and maintain the 

ORS in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7 above, and 

awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, including expert 

fees, and costs. 

s/Lee D. Sarkin 

DREW M. LEVITT 

Florida Bar No: 782246 

drewmlevitt@gmail.com 

LEE D. SARKIN 

Florida Bar No. 962848 

LSarkin@aol.com 

4700 N.W. Boca Raton Blvd, Ste. 302 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone (561) 994-6922 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 9:22-cv-81582-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 8 of 8