1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.:

GARFIELD SPENCE

Plaintiff,

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

GOLDEN SHOPPES LLC.

Defendant.

/

 COMPLAINT

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

hereby files this Complaint and sues GOLDEN SHOPPES 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 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 1 of 15
2

that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Palm Beach 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 7750 Okeechobee Blvd 

West Palm Beach, FL 33411 (“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 November

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 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 2 of 15
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 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 3 of 15
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 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 4 of 15
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 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 5 of 15
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, Office 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 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 6 of 15
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. On the far southern edge of the Property, there are two accessible parking 

spaces that serve more than one accessible entrance that are not located on the 

shortest distance to the accessible entrances in violation of section 208.3.1 of 

the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult and 

dangerous for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property from these accessible 

parking spaces as the far location increases the likelihood of traversing into the 

vehicular way and getting struck by a vehicle or encountering a barrier to access 

which stops Plaintiff from accessing the public accommodations offered at the 

Property.

ii. On the far southern edge of the Property, there are two accessible parking 

spaces. On the accessible route leading from these spaces to the accessible 

entrances, there are multiple accessible ramps that lack finished edges or edge 

protection on both sides of the ramp edges and/or are 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 7 of 15
8

the side edge of the ramp, the lack of edge protection would likely cause 

Plaintiff to tip and incur injury.

iii. On the far southern edge of the Property, there are two accessible parking 

spaces. On the accessible route leading from these spaces to the accessible 

entrances, one of these ramps has 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.

iv. On the accessible route near Unit 18, the accessible ramp servicing the Property 

has 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.

v. The surfaces of the accessible route near Unit 18 lacks a level turning space of 

at least a 60 inches in diameter circle or a 60 inch square minimum t-shaped 

space in violation of section 304.3 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 if Plaintiff is forced to turn on a sloped surface this can 

cause the wheelchair to tip over and cause injury.

vi. On the accessible route leading to Unit 18, there is a vertical rise in the 

accessible ramp that is approximately an inch, in violation of Section 303.2 and 

Case 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 8 of 15
9

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

dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access public features of the Property 

when using this accessible ramp as vertical rises on ramps are particularly 

dangerous as the surface of the ramp is already at a significant slope which 

increases the likelihood of the wheelchair to tip over due to the vertical rise.

vii. Adjacent to Mobile Lube Express, the accessible parking space does not have a 

marked access aisle in violation of section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access makes it nearly impossible for an individual in 

a wheelchair to enter and exit their vehicle at this accessible parking space due 

to the close presence of parked vehicles on either side of the accessible parking 

space not providing enough room for the wheelchair, this eliminates the 

accessible route from this accessible parking space.

viii. Adjacent to Mobile Lube Express, due to the lack of an access aisle for the 

accessible parking space, when a vehicle is parked next to this accessible space, 

it blocks the accessible route from this accessible parking space. As a result, the 

Property lacks an accessible route from the accessible parking space to the 

accessible entrance of the Property in violation of section 208.3.1 of the 2010 

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

to access the units of the Property.

ix. Near Mobile Lube Express, 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 9 of 15
10

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.

x. In front of Unit 15, 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 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.

xi. In front of Unit 15, 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.

xii. At Unit 14, there is a doorway threshold with a vertical rise in excess of 1⁄2 (one 

half) inch and does not contain a bevel with a maximum slope of 1:2 in violation 

of section 404.2.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the interior of the Property 

at this location as the vertical rise at the door threshold could potentially cause 

Plaintiff to tip over when attempting to enter. Moreover, this barrier to access 

is made more difficult by the fact that it is in the doorway and Plaintiff would 

Case 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 10 of 15
11

be required to hold the door open with one hand while attempt to the “push” the 

wheel of the wheelchair over the vertical rise.

xiii. Due to the barrier to access referenced in (xii), not all entrance doors and 

doorways comply with section 404 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, this is a 

violation of section 206.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

xiv. In front of Unit 11, the Property has an accessible ramp servicing the two 

accessible parking spaces 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.

xv. Inside Unit 6, the to-go/take-out counter 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 togo/take-out 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.

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

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

GRAND LAKE CHINESE RESTAURANT RESTROOMS

Case 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 11 of 15
12

i. 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.

ii. Restrooms have a pedestal sink with inadequate knee and toe clearance in 

violation of section 306 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

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

restroom sink as Plaintiff is seated in a wheelchair and, when seated, Plaintiff’s 

feet and legs protrude out in front. In order to properly utilize a sink, Plaintiff’s 

legs must be able to be underneath the surface of the sink, but due to the 

improper configuration of the sink, there is no room underneath for Plaintiff’s 

legs and feet.

iii. Due to the placement of a soap dispenser within 12” above the rear grab bar, 

there is inadequate space between the grab bar and objects placed above the 

grab bar in violation of section 609.3 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This 

barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to safely transfer from the 

wheelchair to the toilet and back.

iv. The hand operated flush control is not located on the open side of the accessible 

toilet in violation of section 604.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier 

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

flush the toilet as the location of the flush control on the open side is 

significantly easier to reach than when it is positioned on the closed side.

Case 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 12 of 15
13

v. The toilet paper dispenser in the accessible toilet is not positioned in seven to 

nine inches in front of the toilet and therefore is in violation of section 604.7 of 

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

Plaintiff to utilize the toilet due to the fact the toilet paper dispenser is at an 

improper distance from the toilet, given Plaintiff’s disability, Plaintiff would 

not be able to get up and reach the toilet paper.

vi. 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 

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 

Case 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 13 of 15
14

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 

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 

Case 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 14 of 15
15

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: November 7, 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 9:22-cv-81734-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 15 of 15