UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

JESUS GONZALEZ

Plaintiff,

vs. 

GARDEN PARTNERS, LLC., 

d/b/a Peacock Garden Café. 

 Defendants. 

 / 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, Jesus Gonzalez, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby sues 

Defendant, Garden Partners, LLC., d/b/a Peacock Garden Café, for injunctive relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 28 C.F.R. Part 

36 and alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189. This Court is vested with 

original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. 

2. Venue is proper in the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) in that all events 

giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within the Southern District of Florida and the subject 

premises is located within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

3. Defendant, Garden Partners, LLC., is authorized to conduct, and conducting, 

business within the State of Florida and within the jurisdiction of this court. 

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 1 of 9
Gonzalez v. Garden Partners, et al 

Complaint 

Page 2 of 9 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Jesus Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of the state of Florida. Plaintiff

has a “qualified disability” under the ADA as he is disabled with neuropathy and nerve damage 

due to radiation and utilizes a wheelchair for mobility. Plaintiff’s disability is defined in 42 

U.S.C. §12102(1)(A)(2), 28 C.F.R. §36.105(b)(2) and 28 C.F.R. §36.105(2)(iii)(D). Plaintiff is 

also a “tester” to determine whether public accommodations are in compliance with the 

ADA/ADAAG.

5. Defendant, Garden Partners, LLC, (also referenced as “Defendant Garden 

Partners,” “operator,” or “lessee”) is a Florida Limited Partnership. Defendant, Garden Partners

is the owner and operator of the Peacock Garden Café. 

FACTS

6. Defendant, Garden Partners Restaurant’s, Peacock Garden Café features an 

indoor/outdoor dining room perfect for al fresco dining. The garden surrounds diners with 

flourishing plants and flowers as they dine under the shade of tree canopies during the day and 

underneath starry skies at night. The Garden Partners Restaurant’s, Peacock Garden Café is 

located at 2889 McFarlane Road, Miami, FL 33193, and is open to the public and therefore is a

place of public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B) as “[A] restaurant, bar, or 

other establishment serving food or drink.” The Garden Partners Restaurant’s, Peacock Garden 

Café which is the subject to this action is also referred to as “Peacock Garden Cafe,” 

“restaurant,” or “place of public accommodation.”

7. As the owner/operator of a restaurant which is open to the public, Defendant, 

Garden Partners Restaurant’s is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title 

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 2 of 9
Gonzalez v. Garden Partners, et al

Complaint 

Page 3 of 9

III because it is a private entity which owns, or operates a restaurant; 42 U.S.C. 

§12182, §12181(7)(B) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2).

8. Due to the close proximity to Plaintiff’s home to Coconut Grove and the Peacock 

Garden Café, on August 19, 2022, Plaintiff personally visited the restaurant to purchase a meal 

and dine therein and to test for compliance with the ADA/ADAAG.

9. Due to the fact that he perambulates with the assistance of a wheelchair, Plaintiff

met barriers to access while testing/dining within the restaurant. 

10. Based on the access impediments Plaintiff encountered, Plaintiff has been denied

full and equal access by the owner and operator of the “Peacock Garden Café” (Defendant 

Garden Partners).

11. As the owner and operator of the “Peacock Garden Café”, Defendant, Garden

Partners, and the need to provide for equal access in all areas of its restaurant. Therefore, its 

failure to reasonably accommodate mobility impaired and disabled patrons by ensuring that its

restaurant is fully accessible is/was willful, malicious, and oppressive and in complete disregard 

for the civil rights of the Plaintiff and in violation of 28 C.F.R. §36.302.

12. As a result of Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered loss of dignity, 

mental anguish and other tangible injuries and has suffered an injury-in-fact.

13. Plaintiff continues to desire to patronize and/or test the “Peacock Garden Café”

but continues to be injured in that he continues to be discriminated against due to the barriers to

access within that restaurant which are in violation of the ADA.

14. Any and all requisite notice has been provided.

15. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the civil rights law office of J. Courtney 

Cunningham, PLLC and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of this 

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 3 of 9
Gonzalez v. Garden Partners, et al 

Complaint 

Page 4 of 9 

cause, including costs and expenses incurred. Plaintiff is entitled to recover those attorney’s fees, 

costs and expenses from Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205. 

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF TITLE III OF THE ADA 

16. The ADA was enacted and effective as of July 26, 1990, and ADA legislation has 

been protecting disabled persons from discrimination due to disabilities since that time. Over 32 

years have passed since enactment of the ADA, public accommodations and places of public 

accommodation have had adequate time for compliance. 

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

(i) provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination 

of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(ii) provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and, 

(iii) invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to 

enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to 

address the major areas of discrimination faced on a daily by people 

with disabilities.

42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)(2) and (4). 

18. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff personally visited the “Peacock Garden 

Café”, with the intention of patronizing that restaurant to enjoy a meal and/or test the public 

accommodation for compliance with the ADA/ADAAG; however, Plaintiff was denied adequate 

accommodation because, as a disabled individual who utilizes a wheelchair for mobility, Plaintiff 

met barriers to access. Therefore, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact. 

19. Defendant, Garden Partners, has discriminated (and continue to discriminate) 

against Plaintiff by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods,

services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations at the “Peacock Garden Café” in 

derogation of 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. and as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §12182 et seq. by failing

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 4 of 9
Gonzalez v. Garden Partners, et al

Complaint 

Page 5 of 9

to remove barriers to access pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(a)(iv), where such removal is 

readily achievable.

20. Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal 

safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at the “Peacock 

Garden Café”.

21. Defendant is governed by the ADA and must be in compliance therewith. 

However, Defendant has discriminated against disabled patrons in derogation of 28 C.F.R. Part 

36.

22. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on July 26, 1991 (as amended), 

the Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, promulgated Federal Regulations to 

implement the requirements of the ADA, known as the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, under which said 

Department may obtain civil penalties of up to $75,000 for the first violation and $150,000 for 

any subsequent violation.

23. Defendant, Garden Partners Restaurant’s the Peacock Garden Café, is in violation 

of 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., the ADA and 28 C.F.R. §36.302 et seq., and Defendant is 

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

i. Plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as there is traffic pole encroaching the 

designated accessible parking space access aisle. Violation: traffic pole is encroaching 

over the accessible parking space access aisles violating Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG 

and Section 502.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The main entrance only has stairs to access the restaurant. Violation: This entrance is 

inaccessible and does not have signage posted indicating the location of an accessible 

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 5 of 9
Gonzalez v. Garden Partners, et al

Complaint 

Page 6 of 9

entrance. Sections 216.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

iii. Plaintiff had difficulty using the bar counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: There 

is no lower portion of the bar counter provided, violating Section 5.2 of the ADAAG and 

Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. Plaintiff had difficulty using the bar counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: There 

is no lower portion of the bar counter provided, violating Section 5.2 of the ADAAG and 

Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. There are permanently designated interior spaces without proper signage, as the signage 

is mounted on the door leaf and does not provide braille, violating Section 4.1.3(16) and 

4.30 of the ADAAG and Sections 216.2 and 703 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

vi. Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not 

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory bottom supply and/or drainpipes are not fully wrapped 

or maintained due to the lack of maintenance violating Section 4.19.4 of the ADAAG and 

Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vii. Plaintiff had difficulty to use the mirror, as it is mounted too high. Violation: The mirror 

provided in the restroom is in violation of the requirements in Section 4.19.6 of the 

ADAAG and Section 603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

viii. Plaintiff had difficulty closing the stall door, as it is missing pull handles. Violation: 

Toilet compartment (stall) door does not provide pull handles on both sides of the door 

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 6 of 9
Gonzalez v. Garden Partners, et al

Complaint 

Page 7 of 9

near the latch. Sections 4.27.4 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

ix. Plaintiff had difficulty closing the stall door as the toilet compartment (stall) door does 

not provide self-closing hinges. Sections 4.17.5 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.8.1.2 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

x. Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not 

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory bottom supply and/or drainpipes are not fully wrapped 

or maintained due to the lack of maintenance violating Section 4.19.4 of the ADAAG and 

Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

xi. Plaintiff could not use the toilet tissue dispenser without assistance, as it is not mounted 

at the required location. Violation: The toilet tissue dispenser is not mounted in 

accordance with Section 4.16.6 and Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 604.7 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

xii. Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the required clear floor 

space was not provided due to encroaching item (basket). Violation: The trash bin is 

encroaching over the accessible water closet clear floor space. Section 4.16.2 of the 

ADAAG and Sections 604.3.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

xiii. Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the rear wall grab bar does 

not have the required clearance. Violation: The basket on top of the water closet tank is 

encroaching the rear wall grab bar not providing the required clearance. Section 609.3 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 7 of 9
Gonzalez v. Garden Partners, et al

Complaint 

Page 8 of 9

xiv. There are permanently designated interior spaces without proper signage, as the signage 

is mounted on the door leaf and does not provide braille, violating Section 4.1.3(16) and 

4.30 of the ADAAG and Sections 216.2 and 703 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

xv. The plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not 

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory bottom supply and/or drain pipes are not fully wrapped 

or maintained due to the lack of maintenance violating Section 4.19.4 of the ADAAG and 

Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

xvi. Plaintiff had difficulty to use the mirror, as it is mounted too high. Violation: The mirror 

provided in the restroom is in violation of the requirements in Section 4.19.6 of the 

ADAAG and Section 603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

xvii. Plaintiff had difficulty closing the stall door, as it is missing pull handles. Violation: 

Toilet compartment (stall) door does not provide pull handles on both sides of the door 

near the latch. Sections 4.27.4 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

xviii. Plaintiff had difficulty closing the stall door as the toilet compartment (stall) door does 

not provide self-closing hinges. Sections 4.17.5 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.8.1.2 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

xix. Plaintiff could not use the toilet tissue dispenser without assistance, as it is not mounted 

at the required location. Violation: The toilet tissue dispenser is not mounted in 

accordance with Section 4.16.6 and Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 604.7 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 8 of 9
Gonzalez v. Garden Partners, et al 

Complaint 

Page 9 of 9 

xx. Plaintiff could not use the paper towel dispenser without assistance, as it is not mounted 

at the required location. Violation: The paper towel dispenser is not mounted in 

accordance with Section 4.2.5 of the ADAAG and Section 308.2.1 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jesus Gonzalez hereby demands judgment against Defendant, 

Garden Partners, LLC., d/b/a Peacock Garden Café, and requests the following injunctive and 

declaratory relief: The Court declare that Defendants have violated the ADA; 

a) The Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize their

policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, 

b) The Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to alter the commercial property 

and the “Peacock Garden Café” located therein such that it becomes accessible to 

and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full extent required by the Title 

III of the ADA;

d) The Court award reasonable costs and attorneys fees; and 

e) The Court award any and all other relief that may be necessary and appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted on this November 7, 2022. 

 By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

 J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

 FBN: 628166 

 J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 

 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 

 Miami, Florida 33156 

 Telephone: 305-351-2014 

 cc@cunninghampllc.com

 legal@cunninghampllc.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-23656-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 9 of 9