1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMERIWOODCRAFT INC., a Florida 

Profit Corporation, SERGIO DEGAN, as 

Trustee of the Sergio Degan Revocable 

Trust, and CHRISTINE DEGAN, as Trustee 

of the Christine Degan Revocable Trust,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

undersigned counsel, hereby files this complaint and sues AMERIWOODCRAFT 

INC. (“AMERIWOODCRAFT”), SERGIO DEGAN, as Trustee of the Sergio Degan 

Revocable Trust (“S. DEGAN”) and CHRISTINE DEGAN, as Trustee of the Christine Degan 

Revocable Trust (“C. DEGAN”) (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 referred to as the "ADA"). See also 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 1 of 13
2

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 Ameriwoodcraft Inc. (“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. The Plaintiff personally visited 

Ameriwoodcraft Inc., but was denied full and equal access, and full and equal 

enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods, and amenities within Ameriwoodcraft 

Inc., which is the subject of this lawsuit. The Subject Facility is a furniture 

repair and Plaintiff wanted to 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, AMERIWOODCRAFT, S. DEGAN and C. DEGAN are authorized to 

conduct business and are in fact conducting business within the State of Florida. 

The Subject Facility is located at 2012 N Dixie Hwy, Hollywood, FL 33020. Upon 

information and belief, AMERIWOODCRAFT is the lessee and/or operator of the 

Real Property and therefore held accountable of the violations of the ADA in the 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 2 of 13
3

Subject Facility which is the matter of this suit. Upon information and belief, S. 

DEGAN and C. DEGAN are the owners and lessors 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;

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 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 3 of 13
4

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 non-productivity.

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. 

Ameriwoodcraft Inc. 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 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 

the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, and 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 4 of 13
5

full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages 

and/or accommodations at Ameriwoodcraft Inc. located at 2012 N Dixie Hwy, 

Hollywood, FL 33020, 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. 

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 the Plaintiff with the 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 5 of 13
6

following specific violations which Plaintiff personally encountered and/or has 

knowledge of:

a) The customer parking facility in front of the furniture refinishing 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) The business has parking in front of the main customer entrance. One (1) 

compliant accessible parking space with adjacent access aisle is required. 2012 

ADA Standards 208.2 

d) Where a total of four or fewer parking spaces, including accessible parking spaces 

are provided on a site, identification of accessible parking spaces are not required 

by DOJ regulations. All other accessible routes and elements at the facility must 

be compliant. 2010 ADA Standards 216.5 

e) Existing facility does not provide a compliant accessible route to the furniture 

refinishing shop office from any site arrival point. 2012 ADA Standards 206.2, 

208, 401.1 

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 

enter the facility or safely maneuver through the parking area. At least one 

accessible route must be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces 

and accessible passenger loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 6 of 13
7

transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. 2012 

ADA Standards 206.2.1 

h) The furniture refinishing shop main entrance is non-compliant. There is a vertical 

rise from the parking lot up to the main office door exceeding the maximum rise 

allowed. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum are permitted to be vertical. 

2012 ADA Standards 302.2 

i) At time of inspection there was a car stop placed on the ground in front of the 

main office door not allowing enough room necessary to maneuver a mobility 

device and gain entrance into the building. Maneuvering clearances must extend 

the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side 

clearance.2012 ADA Standards 404.2.4 

j) The furniture refinishing shop main entrance door has non-compliant knob-type 

door hardware. Operable parts must be operable with one hand and not require 

tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist. 2012 ADA Standards 309.4 

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 Ameriwoodcraft Inc. 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 7 of 13
8

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 with disabilities by January 28, 1992. As 

of this date the Defendants have failed to comply with this mandate.

19. The 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. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth 

in paragraphs 1 through 20 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 8 of 13
9

22. Defendants have discriminated, and 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, 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).

23. 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.

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

24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth 

in paragraphs 1 through 23 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

25. 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 9 of 13
10

architectural barriers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

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.

COUNT III- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO MODIFY POLICIES, 

PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

26. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth 

in paragraphs 1 through 25 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

27. 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).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and 

requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to 

evaluate, neutralize and modify their 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 10 of 13
11

COUNT IV- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE

28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth 

in paragraphs 1 through 27 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

29. 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.

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 May 31, 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-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 11 of 13
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMERIWOODCRAFT INC., a Florida 

Profit Corporation, SERGIO DEGAN, as 

Trustee of the Sergio Degan Revocable 

Trust, and CHRISTINE DEGAN, as Trustee 

of the Christine Degan Revocable Trust,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 31, 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.

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-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 12 of 13
13

SERVICE LIST:

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN, Plaintiff, vs. AMERIWOODCRAFT INC., a Florida 

Profit Corporation, SERGIO DEGAN, as Trustee of the Sergio Degan Revocable Trust, and 

CHRISTINE DEGAN, as Trustee of the Christine Degan Revocable Trust

United States District Court Southern District of Florida

CASE NO.

AMERIWOODCRAFT INC.

REGISTERED AGENT:

PERSIGHETTI, PATRICK

2012 N. DIXIE HWY

HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

SERGIO DEGAN, as Trustee of the Sergio Degan Revocable Trust

1152 LINCOLN ST 

HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

CHRISTINE DEGAN, as Trustee of the Christine Degan Revocable Trust

1152 LINCOLN ST 

HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

Case 0:22-cv-61026-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 13 of 13