1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.:

GARFIELD SPENCE

Plaintiff,

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

WESTGATE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, LLC.

Defendant.

/

 COMPLAINT

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

hereby files this Complaint and sues WESTGATE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, 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 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 1 of 18
2

that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Broward 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 15740-15984 W STATE 

ROAD 84 SUNRISE FL 33326 (“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 October 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 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 2 of 18
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 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 3 of 18
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 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 4 of 18
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 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 5 of 18
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 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 6 of 18
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. The west side of the Property lacks an accessible route from the sidewalk to the 

accessible entrances in violation of section 206.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. The west side of the Property is the only area of the Property adjacent 

to the public sidewalk. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

Plaintiff to utilize public transportation to access the public accommodations 

located on the Property.

ii. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15972, the access aisle serving the 

accessible parking space has a width that decreases below 60 inches and is 

therefore in violation of section 502.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and 

enter their vehicle while parked at the Property.

iii. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15972, the access aisle does not extend the 

full length of the accessible parking space and is in violation of section 502.3.2 

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

and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the 

Property.

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 7 of 18
8

iv. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15972, the accessible parking space is not 

located on the shortest distance to the accessible route leading 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.

v. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15912, due to a failure to enact a policy of 

proper grounds maintenance, there is a gouge in the pavement that creates a 

vertical rise of approximately an inch in the accessible parking space. As a 

result, the ground surfaces of the accessible space have vertical rises in excess 

of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have broken or 

unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section 502.4, 302 and 303 

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

and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

vi. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15912, due to a failure to enact a policy of 

proper grounds maintenance, there is a gouge in the pavement that creates a 

vertical rise in excess of a quarter of an inch in the ground surfaces of the 

accessible route. As a result, the ground surfaces of the accessible route have 

vertical rises in excess of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip 

resistant, have broken or unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with 

Section 302 and 303 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 8 of 18
9

would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the 

Property.

vii. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15912, due to a failure to enact a policy of 

proper grounds maintenance, the markings of the access aisle are not clearly 

defined, which does not discourage parking in the access aisle in violation of 

section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it difficult for Plaintiff to leave a vehicle when parked in this accessible 

parking space as it is probable a vehicle may be parked in the access aisle due 

to the encouragement of parking there.

viii. As a result of the barrier to access referenced in (vii), the Property lacks an 

accessible route from this 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. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15900, the access aisle serving the 

accessible parking space has a width that decreases below 60 inches and is 

therefore in violation of section 502.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and 

enter their vehicle while parked at the Property.

x. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15900, due to a failure to enact a policy of 

proper grounds maintenance, there is concrete buildup in the pavement that 

creates excessive vertical rises in the accessible parking space. As a result, the 

ground surfaces of the accessible space have vertical rises in excess of 1⁄4 (one 

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 9 of 18
10

quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have broken or unstable 

surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section 502.4, 302 and 303 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and 

difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

xi. Across the vehicular way from Unit 15900, due to a failure to enact a policy of 

proper grounds maintenance, there are divots the pavement that creates 

excessive vertical rises in the accessible parking space. As a result, the ground 

surfaces of the accessible space have vertical rises in excess of 1⁄4 (one quarter) 

inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have broken or unstable surfaces 

or otherwise fail to comply with Section 502.4, 302 and 303 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult 

for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

xii. Nearest Unit 15900, there is a vertical rise at the base of the accessible ramp 

that is in excess of a 1⁄4 of an inch, in violation of Section 303.2 and 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.

xiii. Inside Bravo Supermarket, the ticket dispenser at the meat counter has a reach 

greater than 44 inches in violation of section 308.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

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

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 10 of 18
11

the ticket dispenser due to the fact individuals in wheelchairs are seated and 

have lower reach ranges than individuals who stand.

xiv. Inside Bravo Supermarket, the bag dispenser at the meat counter has a reach 

greater than 44 inches in violation of section 308.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

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

the bag dispenser due to the fact individuals in wheelchairs are seated and have 

lower reach ranges than individuals who stand.

xv. Inside Bravo Supermarket, the vertical reach to the meat counter bag dispenser 

exceeds the maximum allowable height of 48 (forty-eight) inches above the 

finish floor or ground in violation of section 308.3.1 of the ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to reach the bag 

dispenser due to the fact individuals in wheelchairs are seated and have lower 

reach ranges than individuals who stand.

xvi. There are no accessible parking spaces on the Property that have a sign 

designating an accessible parking space as “Van Accessible” in violation of 

section 208.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and section 502.6 of the 2010 

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

to locate a van accessible parking space. 

xvii. At Al’s Jose's Uncle Al's Sports Café, there is not at least 5% (five percent) of 

the exterior dining surfaces provided for consumption of food or drink which 

complies with section 902.3 requiring the maximum height of the dining surface 

to be maximum 34 (thirty-four) inches above the finished floor in violation of 

section 226.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards.

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 11 of 18
12

xviii. Inside Al’s Jose's Uncle Al's Sports Café, the bar is lacking any portion of the 

counter that has a maximum height of maximum height of 34 (thirty-four) 

inches from the finished floor in violation of section 902.3 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. In addition, there are is no seating within reasonable proximity to the 

bar offering dining surfaces provided for consumption of food or drink which 

complies with section 902.2 requiring appropriate knee and toe clearance 

complying with 306 positioned for a forward approach, in violation of section 

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

dangerous and difficult for the Plaintiff to eat or drink in this unique area of the 

restaurant as individuals in wheelchairs are at a lower height due to their 

disability and when an eating surface is too high, they are unable to enjoy their 

food and drink at this location.

xix. Inside Al’s Jose's Uncle Al's Sports Café, there is not at least 5% (five percent) 

of the tables in the bar area provided for consumption of food or drink which 

complies with section 902.3 requiring the maximum height of the dining surface 

to be maximum 34 (thirty-four) inches above the finished floor in violation of 

section 226.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards.

xx. In front of the western entrance to Unit 1590, there is a vertical rise at the base 

of the accessible ramp that is approximately half of an inch, in violation of 

Section 303.2 and 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 12 of 18
13

which increases the likelihood of the wheelchair to tip over due to the vertical

rise.

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

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

BRAVO SUPERMARKET RESTROOMS

i. The door locking hardware of the accessible restroom entrance has operable 

parts which require tight grasping, pinching or twisting of the wrist in violation 

of section 309.4 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 because it is more difficult to open the restroom door.

ii. There is inadequate (less than 1 1⁄2 inches) spacing underneath the grab bars 

surrounding the toilet in violation of section 609.3 of the 2010 ADAAG 

Standards. The lack of spacing would make it difficult for Plaintiff to grab the 

bar adequately and transfer back and forth to the wheelchair.

JOSE'S UNCLE AL'S SPORTS CAFÉ RESTROOMS

i. The accessible toilet stall lacks the required size and turning clearance as 

required in section 604.8.1.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

access would make it difficult for Plaintiff’s wheelchair to fit into and maneuver 

within the toilet stall.

ii. 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 13 of 18
14

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.

iii. The restrooms have grab bars adjacent to the commode which are not in 

compliance with section 604.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards as the side bar 

is located more than 12” from the rear wall. This barrier to access would make 

it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to safely transfer from the 

wheelchair to the toilet and back to the wheelchair.

iv. The height of coat hook located in accessible restroom stall is above 48 (fortyeight) inches from the finished floor in violation of 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 coat hook as individuals in 

wheelchairs are seated and have significantly less reach range than individuals 

who stand up.

v. The lavatories and/or sinks in the restrooms have exposed pipes and surfaces 

and are not insulated or configured to protect against contact in violation of 

section 606.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make 

it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to safely utilize the sink 

as the pipes underneath the sink typically have sharp surfaces and/or hot pipes, 

and since individuals in wheelchairs use a sink while seated, their legs are 

particularly vulnerable to these threats.

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 14 of 18
15

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.

vii. The door exiting the restroom lacks a clear minimum maneuvering clearance, 

due to the proximity of the door hardware within 18 inches to the adjacent sink, 

in violation of Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

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

safely exit the restroom due to the fact individuals in wheelchairs have their feet 

sticking out in front of them and when there is inadequate clearance near the 

door (less than 18 inches), their protruding feet block their ability to reach the 

door hardware to open the door.

viii. The secondary door exiting the restroom lacks a clear minimum maneuvering 

clearance, due to the proximity of the door hardware within 18 inches to the 

adjacent wall, in violation of Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

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

individual to safely exit the restroom due to the fact individuals in wheelchairs 

have their feet sticking out in front of them and when there is inadequate 

clearance near the door (less than 18 inches), their protruding feet block their 

ability to reach the door hardware to open the door.

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 15 of 18
16

23. Due to the placement of a counter or shelf in front of the toilet, there is inadequate 

clear floor space for the toilet in violation of section 604.3.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

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

utilize the toilet To the best of Plaintiff’s belief and knowledge, Defendant hasfailed 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 

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 

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 16 of 18
17

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 

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: October 17, 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

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 17 of 18
18

Lake Worth, FL 33467

Phone: 954-637-1868

E-Mail: albertolealesq@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-61925-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 18 of 18