1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.

RENZO BARBERI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BEST PRICE DEALER INC., a Florida 

Profit Corporation, WEDGEWOOD 

BUSINESS PARK FIRST COURT 

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a 

Florida Not For Profit Corporation, and 

FAMES US, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), through the undersigned counsel, hereby 

files this complaint and sues BEST PRICE DEALER, INC. (“BEST PRICE”), FAMES US, LLC

(“FAMES US”), and WEDGEWOOD BUSINESS PARK FIRST COURT CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC. (“WEDGEWOOD BUSINESS PARK”) (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 28 U.S.C. §2201 and §2202.

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 14
2

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, RENZO BARBERI, is a resident of the State of Florida. At the time of 

Plaintiff’s visit to Best Price Dealer (“Subject Facility”), Plaintiff suffered from a “qualified 

disability” under the ADA and required the use of a wheelchair for mobility. Specifically, 

Plaintiff suffers from paraplegia due to a severed T4 and T5 and is therefore confined to his 

wheelchair. Plaintiff personally visited Best Price Dealer, but was denied full and equal access, 

and full and equal enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods, and amenities within Best Price 

Dealer, which is the subject of this lawsuit. The Subject Facility is a used car dealer, and Plaintiff 

wanted to look for a vehicle for sale but was unable to due to the discriminatory barriers 

enumerated in Paragraph 15 of this Complaint.

4. In the alternative, Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI, 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, BEST PRICE, FAMES US, and WEDGEWOOD BUSINESS PARK are 

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

The Subject Facility is located at 1074 NW 1st Court, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009. Upon 

information and belief, BEST PRICE is the lessee and/or operator of the Real Property and 

therefore held accountable of the violations of the ADA in the Subject Facility which is the 

matter of this suit. Upon information and belief, FAMES US and WEDGEWOOD BUSINESS 

PARK 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 14
3

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 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 nonproductivity.

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:

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 14
4

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. Best Price 

Dealer 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 sales 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 full and equal enjoyment of 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Best Price Dealer

located at 1074 NW 1st Court, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009, 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).

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 

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 4 of 14
5

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 Plaintiff with the following specific violations which 

Plaintiff personally encountered and/or has knowledge of:

a) The customer parking facility in front of the auto dealership 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 customer parking in front of the main entrance. One (1) compliant 

accessible parking space with adjacent access aisle is required. 2012 ADA Standards 

208.2 

d) If a total of 4 or fewer parking spaces (inaccessible and accessible) are provided on a 

site, the required accessible space does not have to be identified by a sign (i.e., 

reserved exclusively for use of people with disabilities) (§216.5, Ex. 1). However, all

other requirements for spaces, including access aisles, still apply. 2012 ADA 

Standards 216.5 

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 5 of 14
6

e) Existing facility does not provide a compliant accessible route to the main sales 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 transportation stops 

to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. 2012 ADA Standards 

206.2.1 

h) The customer entrance is non-compliant. There is a vertical rise (step) 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) The customer 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 

j) 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 6 of 14
7

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 Best Price 

Dealer. 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 34(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil 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. 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 7 of 14
8

COUNT I- DECLARATORY RELIEF

21. The Defendants’ Facility has architectural barriers which Plaintiff personally encountered 

and/or has knowledge of. 

22. Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures to ensure full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations at the Defendants’ Facility to Plaintiff, and similarly situated 

individuals with disabilities.

23. 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).

24. 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.

25. 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.

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.

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 8 of 14
9

COUNT II- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS

26. The Defendants’ Facility has architectural barriers which Plaintiff personally encountered 

and/or has knowledge of.

27. 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. 

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

29. 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 and closing the 

Subject Facility until the requisite modifications are completed.

30. 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.

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.

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 9 of 14
10

COUNT III- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO MODIFY POLICIES, PRACTICES AND 

PROCEDURES

31. The Defendants’ Facility has architectural barriers which Plaintiff personally encountered 

and/or has knowledge of. 

32. Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures to ensure full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations at the Defendants’ Facility to Plaintiff, and similarly situated 

individuals with disabilities.

33. 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).

34. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188, this Court is vested with the authority to grant Plaintiff 

injunctive relief, including an Order for Defendants to make reasonable modifications in policies, 

practices, or procedures.

35. 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.

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-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 10 of 14
11

COUNT IV- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE

36. The Defendants’ Facility has architectural barriers which Plaintiff personally encountered 

and/or has knowledge of.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188, this Court is vested with the authority to grant Plaintiff 

injunctive relief, including an Order directed at maintenance and future compliance, and entering 

an Order for Defendants to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures.

40. 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.

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.

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 11 of 14
12

Dated this September 30, 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

Email: ronsternlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 12 of 14
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

RENZO BARBERI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BEST PRICE DEALER INC., a Florida 

Profit Corporation, WEDGEWOOD 

BUSINESS PARK FIRST COURT 

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a 

Florida Not For Profit Corporation, and 

FAMES US, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 30, 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

Email: ronsternlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, RENZO BARBERI

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 13 of 14
14

SERVICE LIST:

RENZO BARBERI, Plaintiff, vs. BEST PRICE DEALER INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, 

WEDGEWOOD BUSINESS PARK FIRST COURT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 

a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, and FAMES US, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability 

Company

United States District Court Southern District of Florida

Case No.

BEST PRICE DEALER, INC.

REGISTERED AGENT:

ALFASSI, MEIR

1074 NW 1ST CT

HALLANDALE, FL 33009

VIA PROCESS SERVER

FAMES US, LLC

REGISTERED AGENT:

MAYORGA, ANGELA

31 SW 6TH ST

HALLANDALE BEACH, FL 33009

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

WEDGEWOOD BUSINESS PARK FIRST COURT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, 

INC.

REGISTERED AGENT:

ONE GLOBAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC

900 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY SUITE 300

HALLANDALE BEACH, FL 33009

VIA PROCESS SERVER 

Case 0:22-cv-61835-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 14 of 14