UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

AMIN LAKHANI,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

TOBACCO ROAD PROPERTY 

HOLDINGS, LLC and

TBS MIAMI LLC,

 Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, AMIN LAKHANI (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by his undersigned, hereby files this 

Complaint and sues Defendants, TOBACCO ROAD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC and TBS 

MIAMI LLC (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

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). 

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, AMIN LAKHANI, is currently a resident of the State of Washington, is 

sui juris, and is a qualified individual under the ADA and the FACBC who has been 

intentionally denied access to the Subject Premises as set forth more fully herein, and who will 

continue to be intentionally denied such access without the injunctive relief requested herein.

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 10
3. Mr. Lakhani is limited in one or more major life activities and requires a 

wheelchair to ambulate. Mr. Lakhani has been diagnosed with Type 1B Hereditary Motor & 

Sensory Neuropathy, which is also known as Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disorder.

4. Despite the physical limitations to which he is subjected as a result of his 

disability, Mr. Lakhani strives to lead a full life, frequently travels, dines out, and is also an 

actively social, independent, and highly educated, individual. Mr. Lakhani traveled 

internationally throughout his life both before and after requiring a wheelchair to ambulate at the 

age of 15. Since the age of 15, he has traveled frequently through the United States, and also to 

Singapore, France, and Mexico. 

5. Mr. Lakhani also attended a highly selective dual degree program at the 

University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League Institution, where he received degrees in Economics 

and Computer Science. Mr. Lakhani is very social, highly involved in his community, offers 

dating-coaching through his website and social media, and is highly involved in social activism.

6. Mr. Lakhani’s stays frequently in close proximity to the subject premises—so 

close that it would be considered walking distance for able-bodied persons.

7. Mr. Lakhani avers with all certainty that he will frequently return to the Subject 

Premises once the architectural barriers to access and discriminatory policies and procedures 

violating the ADA and the FACBC are no longer present.

8. Mr. Lakhani looks forward to revisiting the Subject Premises to partake in the full 

and equal enjoyment of the food and services offered to the general public by this facility. 

However, Plaintiff is deterred from returning so long as the discriminatory barriers and policies 

described herein continue to exist at the subject property. 

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 10
9. Mr. Lakhani has visited the Subject Premises, which forms the basis of this 

lawsuit and plans to return to avail him of the goods and services offered to the public at the 

property, and to determine whether the property has been remedied to be ADA compliant.

10. However, 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 the barriers to access which exist at the facility 

including, but not limited to, those set forth in the Complaint. 

11. 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. 

12. In this instance, Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, has visited the Subject 

Property, encountered barriers to access at the Subject Premises, was compelled to engage 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 including the ADA regulatory violations set forth herein

below. 

13. Because, inter alia, this facility was designed, constructed, and received its State 

Licensure on December 4, 2012, well after the January 26, 1993 effective date of the ADA, 

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.

14. Because, inter alia, this facility was designed, constructed, and received its State 

Licensure on December 4, 2013, Plaintiff asserts that said ADA violations are intentional in 

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 10
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.

15. Defendant, TOBACCO ROAD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, is a Florida

Limited Liability Company which is authorized to and does transact business in the State of 

Florida and within this judicial district.

16. Pursuant to the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser’s Office, Defendant, TOBACCO 

ROAD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, is the owner and/or operator/manager of the real 

property located on or 638 S. Miami Ave., Miami, FL 33130 a/k/a 11 SW 7th St., Miami, FL 

33130 (hereinafter the “Subject Premises”). This is the building where the Subject 

Premises/restaurant is located.

17. Defendant, TBS MIAMI LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company which is 

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

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

Defendant, TBS MIAMI LLC, was licensed on December 4, 2013 to provide Permanent Food 

Service and Seating and occupies 638 S. Miami Ave., Miami, FL 33130 a/k/a 11 SW 7th St., 

Miami, FL 33130 as a restaurant. Defendant, TBS MIAMI LLC, is also the owner of the 

fictitious name/is doing business as “BONDING” a/k/a “BONDING SUSHI”.

19. The Defendants’ Facility is a public accommodation and service establishment, 

and although required by law to do so, it is not in compliance with the ADA and ADAAG.

20. In this instance, Mr. Lakhani visited the Facility and encountered barriers to 

access at the Facility, and engaged barriers, suffered legal harm and injury, and will continue to 

suffer legal harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access, and Defendants’ ADA 

violations set forth herein.

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 4 of 10
21. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer direct and indirect injury as a result

of the ADA violations that exist at the Facility and the actions or inactions described herein. 

22. 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.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIM

23. Mr. Lakhani has attempted to and has, to the extent possible, accessed the 

Facility, but could not do so because of his disabilities due to the physical barriers to access, 

dangerous conditions and ADA violations that exist at the Facility that restrict and/or limit his

access to the Facility and/or the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

accommodations offered therein, including those barriers, conditions and ADA violations more 

specifically set forth in this Complaint.

24. Mr. Lakhani intends to visit the Facility again in the near future in order to utilize 

all of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations commonly 

offered at the Facility, but will be unable to do so because of his disability due to the physical 

barriers to access, dangerous conditions and ADA violations that exist at the Facility that restrict 

and/or limit his access to the Facility and/or accommodations offered therein, including those 

barriers conditions and ADA violations more specifically set forth in this Complaint.

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 5 of 10
those specifically set forth herein, and make the Facility accessible to and usable by persons with 

disabilities, including Plaintiff.

26. Defendants have discriminated against Mr. Lakhani by failing to comply with the 

above requirements. 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:

Main Entrance

i.) Furniture encroaches over the maneuvering clearance on the pull side of 

the door contrary to 2010 ADA Code §404.2.

Bar - Counter

ii.) There is no lower portion of the counter provided contrary to 2010 ADA 

Code §902.3;

Men’s Accessible Restroom

iii.) Permanent room identifying signed does not have braille or raised 

characters and is mounted on the door leaf contrary to 2010 ADA Code 

§7.3.4.1;

iv.) Door does not provide the required maneuvering clearance on the pull side 

of the door contrary to 2010 ADA Code §404.2.4;

v.) Non-complaint knob-type hardware, requiring grasping and turning of the 

wrist to operate contrary to 2010 ADA Code §404.2.7;

vi.) Furniture encroaches over the water closet cleareance contrary to 2010 

ADA Code §604.3.2;

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 6 of 10
vii.) Wood partition encroaches over the water closet clearance contrary to

2010 ADA Code §604.3.2;

viii.) Clear floor space does not provide the required diameter wheelchair 

turnaround space in room contrary to 2010 ADA Code §304.3;

ix.) Toilet tissue dispenser is mounted at a non-compliant distance in front of 

the water closet to the centerline of the dispenser contrary to 2010 ADA 

Code §604.7;

x.) Water closet side wall grab bar is mounted at 46” perpendicular from rear 

wall to centerline of its outer flange contrary to 2010 ADA Code §604.5.1;

xi.) Water closet is centered at 19” from side wall contrary to 2010 ADA Code 

§604.2;

xii.) Lavatory has unwrapped bottom sink pipes failing to maintain cover 

against contact contrary to 2010 ADA Code §606.5;

xiii.) Lavatory mirror is mounted at 49.5” above the finished floor to bottom 

edge of its reflecting surface contrary to 2010 ADA Code §603.3;

xiv.) Lavatory is mounted at 35.5” above the finished floor to top of rim

contrary to 2010 ADA Code §606.3;

xv.) Trash bin encroaches over the water closet clearance contrary to 2010 

ADA Code §604.3.2;

xvi.) Lavatory encroaches over maneuvering clearance on the push side of the 

door contrary to 2010 ADA Code §404.2.4;

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 7 of 10
27. 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 determine all of the discriminatory acts violating the ADA. 

28. Mr. Lakhani has attempted to gain access to the Facility, but because of his 

disability has been denied access to, and has been denied the benefits of services, programs, and 

activities of the Facility, and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by

Defendants, because of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations set forth 

above, and expects to be discriminated against in the future, unless and until Defendants are

compelled to remove the unlawful barriers and conditions and comply with the ADA. 

29. Independent of his personal desire to have access to this place of public 

accommodation free of illegal barriers to access Plaintiff 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. Independent of other subsequent visits, Plaintiff also intends to visit 

the Premises regularly to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, and its 

maintenance of the accessible features of the Premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in Plaintiff's 

individual capacity and as a "tester", visited the Premises, encountered barriers to access at the 

Premises, 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 

violations of the ADA 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 8 of 10
30. Plaintiff, in his capacity as a tester, will absolutely return to the Premises when 

Defendants modify 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.

31. 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. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(B)(2)(A)(iv); 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9); 28 C.F.R, § 

36.304.

32. 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. 

33. 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.

34. 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 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 9 of 10
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 s/ Lauren N. Wassenberg

Glenn R. Goldstein, Esq. (55873) Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. (34083)

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff

Glenn R. Goldstein & Assoc., PLLC Lauren N. Wassenberg & Assoc., P.A.

8101 Biscayne Blvd, Ste. 504 1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 110

Miami, Florida 33138 Boca Raton, Florida 33431

(305) 900-2373 (561) 571-0646

GGoldstein@G2Legal.net WassenbergL@gmail.com

Case 1:22-cv-23185-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 10 of 10