UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

 CASE NO.:

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

PARTY CITY CORPORATION,

a Foreign Profit Corporation 

d/b/a PARTY CITY,

Defendant(s).

____________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, 

hereby files this Complaint and sues PARTY CITY CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit 

Corporation, d/b/a PARTY CITY (“Defendant”), 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. Additionally, this is a complaint for breach of contract and injunctive relief seeking 

enforcement of the Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement (copy 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 1 of 20
attached as Exhibit A) reached in the case of HOWARD COHAN v. PARTY CITY 

CORPORATION, 0:19-CV-62279-RKA (S.D. Fla.) (dismissed by order upon settlement) which 

arose out of Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination caused by certain barriers encountered by Plaintiff 

on Defendant’s properties that prevented Plaintiff from the full and equal enjoyment of places of 

public accommodation in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

3. Venue is proper in this Court, Fort Lauderdale Division, 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 that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Broward County and St. 

Lucie County, Florida.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN is sui juris and is a resident of the State of Florida 

residing in Palm Beach County, Florida.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and lessor of 

the Real Properties, which are subject to this suit, and are located at:

a. 220 FL-817 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024 (PARTY CITY FL-817);

b. 14804 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33027 (PARTY CITY PINES 

BLVD);

c. 843 Commercial Blvd., Oakland Park, Florida 33334 (PARTY CITY OAKLAND 

PARK); and

d. 1745 St. Lucie W. Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL 34986 (PARTY CITY PORT ST. 

LUCIE)

and is the owner of the improvements where each property is located. The Real Properties are 

hereinafter collectively referred to as “Premises.”

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 2 of 20
6. Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the 

State of Florida.

7. Plaintiff is an individual with numerous permanent disabilities including severe 

spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine with spondylolisthesis; severe spinal stenosis of the cervical 

spine with nerve root compromise on the right side; a non-union fracture of the left acromion 

(shoulder); a labral tear of the left shoulder; a full thickness tear of the right rotator cuff; a right 

knee medial meniscal tear; a repaired ACL and bilateral meniscal tear of the left knee; and severe 

basal joint arthritis of the left thumb. The above listed permanent disabilities and symptoms cause 

sudden onsets of severe pain and substantially limit Plaintiff’s major life activities. As such, 

Plaintiff suffered from a “qualified disability” under the ADA. 42 U.S.C § 12101, et seq.

8. Plaintiff visited Defendant’s Premises on:

a. October 3, 2018 – PARTY CITY FL-817;

b. November 6, 2018 – PARTY CITY PINES BLVD; and

c. November 10, 2018 – PARTY CITY OAKLAND PARK; and

9. At the time of Plaintiff’s visit to the Premises, Plaintiff required the use of fully 

accessible restrooms. Plaintiff personally visited the Premises, but was denied full and equal access 

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

even though he was a “bona fide patron”.

10. Defendant’s Premises are places of public accommodation as defined by Title III 

of the ADA and as such is governed by the ADA.

11. On or about September 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant

regarding the PARTY CITY FL-817, PARTY CITY PINES BLVD., and PARTY CITY 

OAKLAND PARK locations seeking to force Defendant to comply with the ADA and applicable 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 3 of 20
regulations thereto. See HOWARD COHAN v. PARTY CITY CORPORATION, 0:19-CV-62279-

RKA (S.D. Fla.).

12. On or about October 23, 2019, Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed upon stipulation and 

notice to the U.S. District Court that the parties had settled. 

13. In connection with said dismissal, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Full and 

Final Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit A) on or about October 22, 

2019.

14. The Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement required 

Defendant to complete all modifications to the Premises by on or about October 22, 2020.

15. Defendant has failed to complete the required modification(s) to the Premises as 

required by the ADA and the Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement

and Defendant has failed to give notice of any reasons or documentation for non-compliance. 

16. Plaintiff personally visited Defendant’s Premises, including another location in Port 

St. Lucie, on the following dates (and prior to instituting this action):

a. October 14, 2021 – PARTY CITY FL-817;

b. October 14, 2021 – PARTY CITY PINES BLVD; 

c. October 14, 2021– PARTY CITY OAKLAND PARK; and

d. November 11, 2021 – PARTY CITY PORT ST. LUCIE.

17. Plaintiff required the use of fully accessible restrooms. Plaintiff was denied full and 

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

the Premises, even though he was a “bona fide patron”. 

18. Pursuant to the Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality 

Agreement, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a Notice of Non-Compliance on May 13, 2022 with 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 4 of 20
regard to the PARTY CITY FL-817, PARTY CITY PINES BLVD., and PARTY CITY 

OAKLAND PARK locations. 

19. Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, has shown that he will absolutely return to the 

Premises and avail himself of the services offered when Defendant modifies the Premises or 

modifies the policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Completely independent of the personal desire to have access to these places 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 5 of 20
discrimination; and subsequently returns to Premises to verify its compliance or non-compliance 

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, 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.

24. 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.

COUNT I 

VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

25. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 24

above as if fully stated herein.

26. 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).

27. Congress found, among other things, that:

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 6 of 20
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 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.

42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(1)-(3),(5) and (9).

28. Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA was to:

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 7 of 20
a. provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

b. provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities; and

c. 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).

29. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(7), 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 and the 2010 ADA Standards, 

Defendant’s Premises are places of public accommodation covered by the ADA by the fact they 

provide services to the general public and must be in compliance therewith. 

30. 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).

31. Plaintiff has visited Premises, and has been denied full and safe equal access to the 

facilities and therefore suffered an injury in fact.

32. 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 8 of 20
33. 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 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 any subsequent violation.

34. Based on a preliminary inspection of the Premises, Defendant is in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq. and the 2010 American Disabilities Act Standards et. seq., and is 

discriminating against Plaintiff as a result of, inter alia, the following specific violations:

I. PARTY CITY FL-817

Men’s Restroom 

a. Providing a gate or door with a continuous opening pressure of greater than 5 lbs. 

exceeding the limits for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 

404.1, 404.2, 404.2.9 and 309.4. 

b. Failure to provide a coat hook that was previously positioned properly but is no longer 

in place for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 603, 603.4 and 

308.

c. Failure to provide the proper insulation or protection for plumbing or other sharp or 

abrasive objects under a sink or countertop in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606 and 

606.5. 

d. Failure to provide the proper spacing between a grab bar and an object projecting out 

of the wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 609, 609.1 and 609.3. (toilet seat cover 

dispenser)

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 9 of 20
e. Failure to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the water 

closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

604, 604.7 and 309.4. 

f. Providing grab bars of improper horizontal length or spacing as required along the rear 

wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 604, 604.5, 604.5.1 and 604.5.2. 

g. Failure to provide operable parts that are functional or are in the proper reach ranges as 

required for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 309, 309.1, 

309.3, 309.4 and 308. (toilet paper blocking access to grab bars)

II. PARTY CITY PINES BLVD

Men’s Restroom 

a. Providing a gate or door with a continuous opening pressure of greater than 5 lbs. 

exceeding the limits for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 

404.1, 404.2, 404.2.9 and 309.4. 

b. Failure to provide the proper insulation or protection for plumbing or other sharp or 

abrasive objects under a sink or countertop in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606 and 

606.5. 

c. Failure to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the water 

closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

604, 604.7 and 309.4. 

d. Failure to provide grab bars at 33 inches minimum and 36 inches maximum above the 

finished floor measured to the top of the gripping surface in violation of 2010 ADAAG 

§§ 609, 609.4 and 609.7. (rear and side)

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 10 of 20
e. Failure to provide toilet cover dispenser at the correct height above the finished floor 

in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606, 606.1 and 308. 

f. Failure to provide a coat hook within the proper reach ranges for a person with a 

disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 603, 603.4 and 308. 

g. Failure to provide operable parts that are functional or are in the proper reach ranges as 

required for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 309, 309.1, 

309.3, 309.4 and 308. (hook storing toilet paper)

h. Providing a swinging door or gate with improper maneuvering clearance(s) due to a 

wall or some other obstruction in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 404.1, 404.2, 

404.2.4 and 404.2.4.1. (cleaning bucket)

i. Failure to provide proper knee clearance for a person with a disability under a counter 

or sink element in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 306, 306.1 306.3, 606 and 606.2 

III. PARTY CITY OAKLAND PARK

Men’s Restroom

a. Providing a gate or door with a continuous opening pressure of greater than 5 lbs. 

exceeding the limits for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 

404.1, 404.2, 404.2.9 and 309.4.

b. Providing a swinging door or gate with improper maneuvering clearance(s) due to a 

wall or some other obstruction in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 404.1, 404.2, 

404.2.4 and 404.2.4.1. (trash can)

c. Failure to provide the proper insulation or protection for plumbing or other sharp or 

abrasive objects under a sink or countertop in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606 and 

606.5. 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 11 of 20
d. Failure to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the water 

closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

604, 604.7 and 309.4. 

e. Failure to provide the proper spacing between a grab bar and an object projecting out 

of the wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 609, 609.1 and 609.3. 

f. Failure to provide flush controls located on the open side of the water closet in violation 

of 2010 ADAAG §§309, 309.4, 604 and 604.6

g. Failure to provide the water closet in the proper position relative to the side wall or 

partition in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 604 and 604.2. 

h. Failure to provide proper knee clearance for a person with a disability under a counter 

or sink element in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 306, 306.1 306.3, 606 and 606.2 

i. Providing grab bars of improper horizontal length or spacing as required along the side 

wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 604, 604.5, 604.5.1 and 604.5.2. 

IV. PARTY CITY PORT ST. LUCIE

Men’s Restroom

a. Failure to provide the proper spacing between a grab bar and an object projecting out 

of the wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 609, 609.1 and 609.3 (hand dryer).

b. Failure to provide the proper spacing between a grab bar and an object projecting out 

of the wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 609, 609.1 and 609.3 (toilet seat cover 

dispenser).

c. Providing grab bars of improper horizontal length or spacing as required along the rear 

wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 604, 604.5, 604.5.1 and 604.5.2. 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 12 of 20
d. Failure to provide a dispenser in an accessible position (back wall or other inaccessible 

place) so that it can be reached by a person with a disability in violation of 2010 

ADAAG §§ 606, 606.1, 308 and 308.2.2 (toilet seat cover dispenser). 

e. Failure to provide toilet cover dispenser at the correct height above the finished floor

in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606, 606.1 and 308. 

f. Failure to provide flush controls located on the open side of the water closet in violation 

of 2010 ADAAG §§309, 309.4, 604 and 604.6 

g. Failure to provide rear and side grab bars at 33 inches minimum and 36 inches 

maximum above the finished floor measured to the top of the gripping surface in 

violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 609, 609.4 and 609.7. 

h. Failure to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the water 

closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

604, 604.7 and 309.4. 

i. Failure to provide operable parts that are functional or are in the proper reach ranges as 

required for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 309, 309.1, 

309.3, 309.4 and 308 (toilet paper dispenser).

j. Failure to provide operable parts that are functional or are in the proper reach ranges as 

required for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 309, 309.1, 

309.3, 309.4 and 308 (toilet paper rolls blocking access to grab bar).

k. Failure to provide a coat hook within the proper reach ranges for a person with a 

disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 603, 603.4 and 308. 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 13 of 20
l. Providing a gate or door with a continuous opening pressure of greater than 5 lbs. 

exceeding the limits for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 

404.1, 404.2, 404.2.9 and 309.4. 

35. To the best of Plaintiff’s belief and knowledge, Defendant has failed to eliminate 

the specific violations set forth in paragraph 35 herein.

36. 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.

37. 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. As the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises, Defendant is 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. 

39. 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 they are readily accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.401.

40. 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 14 of 20
41. All of the above violations are readily achievable to modify in order to bring 

Premises or the Facilities/Properties into compliance with the ADA.

42. In instance(s) where the 2010 ADAAG standard does not apply, the 1991 ADAAG 

standard applies and all of the violations listed in paragraph 33 herein can be applied to the 1991 

ADAAG standards.

43. 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 facilities to make them readily 

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and 

closing the Subject Facilities until the requisite modifications are completed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant and requests the following 

injunctive and declaratory relief:

1. That this Court declares that Premises owned, operated and/or controlled by 

Defendant is in violation of the ADA;

2. That this Court enter an Order requiring Defendant 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 Defendant to evaluate and neutralize 

its policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such 

reasonable time so as to allow the Defendant 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,

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 15 of 20
5. That this Court award such other and further relief as it may deem necessary, just 

and proper.

COUNT II 

BREACH OF CONTRACT

43. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 24

above as if fully stated herein.

44. On or about October 22, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Full and Final 

Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement. (Exhibit A). Through this Full and Final 

Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement, Defendant agreed to make modifications 

to Defendant’s Premises as outlined in the agreement. The Full and Final Settlement Agreement 

and Confidentiality Agreement required Defendant to complete all modifications to the Premises 

by on or about October 22, 2020.

45. Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent to be performed by him under the 

Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement.

46. Since October 22, 2020, Defendant has failed to complete the modifications 

promised in the Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement. Specifically, 

Defendant has failed to address the following violations:

I. PARTY CITY FL-817

Men’s Restroom 

a. Providing a gate or door with a continuous opening pressure of greater than 5 lbs. 

exceeding the limits for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 

404.1, 404.2, 404.2.9 and 309.4. 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 16 of 20
b. Failure to provide a coat hook that was previously positioned properly but is no longer 

in place for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 603, 603.4 and 

308.

c. Failure to provide the proper insulation or protection for plumbing or other sharp or 

abrasive objects under a sink or countertop in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606 and 

606.5. 

d. Failure to provide the proper spacing between a grab bar and an object projecting out 

of the wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 609, 609.1 and 609.3. 

e. Failure to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the water 

closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

604, 604.7 and 309.4. 

f. Providing grab bars of improper horizontal length or spacing as required along the rear 

wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 604, 604.5, 604.5.1 and 604.5.2. 

II. PARTY CITY PINES BLVD

Men’s Restroom 

a. Providing a gate or door with a continuous opening pressure of greater than 5 lbs. 

exceeding the limits for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 

404.1, 404.2, 404.2.9 and 309.4. 

b. Failure to provide the proper insulation or protection for plumbing or other sharp or 

abrasive objects under a sink or countertop in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606 and 

606.5. 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 17 of 20
c. Failure to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the water 

closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

604, 604.7 and 309.4. 

d. Failure to provide grab bars at 33 inches minimum and 36 inches maximum above the 

finished floor measured to the top of the gripping surface in violation of 2010 ADAAG 

§§ 609, 609.4 and 609.7. (rear and side)

e. Failure to provide toilet cover dispenser at the correct height above the finished floor 

in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606, 606.1 and 308. 

III. PARTY CITY OAKLAND PARK

Men’s Restroom

a. Providing a gate or door with a continuous opening pressure of greater than 5 lbs. 

exceeding the limits for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 

404.1, 404.2, 404.2.9 and 309.4.

b. Providing a swinging door or gate with improper maneuvering clearance(s) due to a 

wall or some other obstruction in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 404, 404.1, 404.2, 

404.2.4 and 404.2.4.1. 

c. Failure to provide the proper insulation or protection for plumbing or other sharp or 

abrasive objects under a sink or countertop in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 606 and 

606.5. 

d. Failure to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the water 

closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

604, 604.7 and 309.4. 

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 18 of 20
e. Failure to provide the proper spacing between a grab bar and an object projecting out 

of the wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 609, 609.1 and 609.3. 

47. Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant’s breach of the Full and Final 

Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement. Specifically, Plaintiff has had to retain the 

services of the undersigned attorney to pursue this action for breach of contract.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant and requests the following 

injunctive and declaratory relief:

1. That this Court declares that Defendant has failed to comply with the Full and Final 

Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement;

2. That this Court enter an Order requiring Defendant to alter its 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 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 as provided in the Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Confidentiality 

Agreement; and,

4. That this Court award such other and further relief as it may deem necessary, just 

and proper.

Dated July 22, 2022.

Sconzo Law Office, P.A.

3825 PGA Boulevard, Suite 207

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Telephone: (561) 729-0940

Facsimile: (561) 491-9459

By: /s/ Gregory S. Sconzo 

GREGORY S. SCONZO, ESQUIRE

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 19 of 20
Florida Bar No.: 0105553

SAMANTHA L. SIMPSON, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 1010423

Primary Email: greg@sconzolawoffice.com

Primary Email: samantha@sconzolawoffice.com

Secondary Email: alexa@sconzolawoffice.com

Case 0:22-cv-61370-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 20 of 20