UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

CARLOS BRITO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION 

D/B/A TOLEDO CENTER and EL 

GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, INC. D/B/A 

EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, 

Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues TOLEDO JALIMAR 

CORPORATION D/B/A TOLEDO CENTER and EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, INC. D/B/A 

EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD (hereinafter “Defendants”), and as grounds alleges: 

JURISDICTION, PARTIES. AND VENUE

1. This is an action for injunctive relief, a declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, 

litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., (the “Americans with 

Disabilities Act” or “ADA”) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

2. The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12181, et seq. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). 

3. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 

and may render declaratory judgment on the existence or nonexistence of any right under 42 

U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 1 of 14
2 

4. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.

5. At all times material, Defendant, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION, owned 

and/or operated a commercial shopping center located at 7147 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 

33144. 

6. At all times material, Defendant, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION, was and 

is a Florida Corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Florida, with a principal place 

of business in South Miami, Florida. Defendant, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION, holds 

itself out to the public as “Toledo Center.” 

7. At all times material, Defendant, EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, INC., owned 

and/or operated a commercial restaurant located at 7173 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33144.1

8. At all times material, Defendant, EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, INC., was and 

is a Florida Corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Florida, with a principal place 

of business in Miami, Florida. Defendant, EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, INC., holds itself 

out to the public as “El Gallego Spanish Food.” 

9. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant’s 

Commercial Property and listed business is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants 

regularly conduct business within Miami-Dade County, Florida, and because a substantial part(s) 

of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Although over thirty (30) years have passed since the effective date of Title III of 

1 This address is located within Defendant’s, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION, commercial shopping center.

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 2 of 14
3 

the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities.

11. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the 

Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive 

publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants continue to discriminate against people 

who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants’ business/or and 

properties. 

12. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in 28 CFR 36.201 and 

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. 

13. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, is, among other things, a paraplegic (paralyzed 

from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to 

his impairment, including, but not limited to, not being able to walk or stand. Plaintiff requires 

the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

14. Defendant, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION, owns, operates and/or 

oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the 

businesses therein and to include the Co-Defendant’s restaurant. 

15. Defendant, EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, INC., owns, operates and/or 

oversees its respective business within the Commercial Property, located in Miami, Florida that 

is the subject of this Action. 

16. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Miami, 

Florida, in Miami-Dade County. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and 

business located within the Commercial Property, to include visits to the Commercial Property 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 3 of 14
4 

and business located within the Commercial Property on August 22, 2022 and October 04, 2022

and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy 

the Commercial Property and business located therein. He often visits the Commercial Property 

and businesses located within the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of the goods and 

services offered there, and because it is approximately ten (10) miles from his residence and is 

near other businesses he frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the Commercial Property 

return to the property within four (4) months’ time of the filing of this Complaint.

17. The Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, found the Commercial Property, and the 

businesses located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff 

encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and business located within the 

Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. 

18. The Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, has encountered architectural barriers that are in 

violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, and business located within the 

Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and the business located 

within the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff’s ability to visit the 

Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, and have 

endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, which are set forth below, 

have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, CARLOS 

BRITO, and others similarly situated.

19. Defendants, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION and EL GALLEGO 

SPANISH FOOD, INC., own and/or operate a place of public accommodation as defined by the 

ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendants, 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 4 of 14
5 

TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION and EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, INC., is

responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation 

that Defendants, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION and EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, 

INC., own and operate is the Commercial Property located at 7173 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 

33144. 

20. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat 

of discrimination from the Defendants’ non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the 

described Commercial Property and the business located within the Commercial Property, 

including but not necessarily limited to the allegations in Counts I through II of this Complaint. 

Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination 

at the Commercial Property, and business located within the Commercial Property, in violation of 

the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial Property and the business located therein, not 

only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the Commercial Property, and 

businesses located within the Commercial Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial 

Property and business located within the Commercial Property are in compliance with the ADA, 

so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the Commercial 

Property, and business located within the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination. 

21. Defendants, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION, as landlord and owner of the 

Commercial Property Business, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in this complaint.

22. Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat 

of discrimination from the Defendants’ non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the 

described Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial Property, but not 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 5 of 14
6 

necessarily limited to the allegations in this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe 

that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the Commercial Property, and business 

within the Commercial Property, in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial 

Property and businesses within the Commercial Property, not only to avail himself of the goods 

and services available at the Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial 

Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial Property, and business located within the 

Commercial Property are in compliance with the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated 

will have full and equal enjoyment of the Commercial Property, and business located within the 

Commercial Property without fear of discrimination.

23. Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him 

access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages 

and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property, and business located within the Commercial 

Property, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq. 

COUNT I - ADA VIOLATIONS 

AS TO TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION 

24. The Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

23 above as though fully set forth herein. 

25. Defendant, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION, has discriminated, and 

continue to discriminate, against Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing, inter alia, to have 

accessible facilities by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if a Defendant has 10 or fewer 

employees and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). A list of the violations that Plaintiff 

encountered during his visit to the Commercial Property, include but are not limited to, the 

following: 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 6 of 14
7 

A. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. There are objects on the path of travel that protrude more than the maximum allowable, 

violating Section 4.4.1 of ADAAG and Section 307.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it is not continuous and 

accessible. Violation: There are inaccessible routes from the public sidewalk and 

transportation stop. These are violations of the requirements in Sections 4.3.2(1), 4.3.8, 

4.5.1, and 4.5.2 of the ADAAG and Sections 206.2.1, 302.1, 303, and 402.2 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel due to abrupt changes in level. 

Violation: There are vertical changes in levels of greater than 1⁄2 inch, violating 

Sections 4.3.8 and 4.5.2 of the ADAAG and Section 303 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

iv. The Plaintiff had difficulty entering tenant spaces without assistance, as the entrance 

thresholds are too high. Violation: There are threshold rises more than 1⁄2 inch at the 

tenant entrances, violating Section 4.13.8 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.5 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

v. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it was not continuous and 

accessible. Violation: There are inaccessible routes between sections of the facility. 

These are violations of the requirements in Sections 4.3.2(2), 4.3, and 4.5 of the 

ADAAG and Sections 206.2.2, 303, 402 and 403, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 7 of 14
8 

vi. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as there are cross slopes in 

excess of 2%. Violation: The path of travel contains excessive cross slopes in violation 

of Section 4.3.7 of the ADAAG and Section 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable. 

B. Access to Goods and Services 

i. There are drinking fountains that don’t provide access to those who have difficulty 

bending or stooping. Violation: There are drinking fountains that are in violation of 

Section 4.1.3(10) of the ADAAG and Sections 211.2 & 602.7 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

C. Public Restrooms 

i. The Plaintiff could not use the accessible toilet compartment door without assistance, 

as it is not self-closing and does not have compliant door hardware. Violation: The 

accessible toilet compartment door does not provide hardware and features that comply 

with Sections 4.17.5 and 4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 604.8.1.2 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

COUNT II – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION 

and EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, INC.

26. The Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

23 above as though fully set forth herein. 

27. Defendants, TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION and EL GALLEGO 

SPANISH FOOD, INC., have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against Plaintiff in 

violation of the ADA by failing, inter alia, to have accessible facilities by January 26, 1992 (or 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 8 of 14
9 

January 26, 1993, if a Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of $500,000 or 

less). A list of the violations that Plaintiff encountered during his visit to the Commercial 

Property, include but are not limited to, the following: 

A. Access to Goods and Services

i. There is seating provided that does not comply with the standards prescribed in Section 

4.32 of the ADAAG and Sections 226 & 902 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable. 

ii. The Plaintiff could not utilize the bar counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: 

There are bar counters that are not at the prescribed height, violating Section 4.32.4 

and 5.2 of the ADAAG and Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable. 

B. Public Restrooms 

i. There are permanently designated interior spaces without proper signage, 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. 

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty using the locking mechanism on the restroom door without 

assistance, as it requires tight grasping. Violation: The restroom door has noncompliant hardware for disabled patrons, violating Sections 4.13.9 & 4.27.4 of the 

ADAAG and Sections 309.4 & 404.2.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution 

is readily achievable.

iii. The Plaintiff could not exit the restroom without assistance, as the required 

maneuvering clearance was not provided due to the location of a trashcan. Violation: 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 9 of 14
10 

The restroom door does not provide the required latch side clearance due to a lack of 

maintenance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and Section 

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

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatory without assistance, as the required knee & toe 

clearances are not provided. Violation: There are lavatories in public restrooms 

without the required clearances provided, violating the requirements in Section 4.19.2 

and Figure 31 of the ADAAG and Sections 306 and 606.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

v. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the side grab bar is 

missing. Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed in 

Section 4.16.4 & Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 604.5.1 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

vi. The Plaintiff could not use the toilet paper dispenser without assistance, as it is not 

mounted at the required location. Violation: The toilet paper 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. 

vii. The Plaintiff could not use the mirror, as it is mounted too high. Violation: The mirrors 

provided in the restrooms are 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

28. The discriminatory violations described in this Complaint are not an exclusive list 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 10 of 14
11 

of the Defendants’ ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendants’ place of 

public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts violating 

the ADA and barriers to access in conjunction with Rule 34 and timely notice. Plaintiff further 

requests to inspect any and all barriers to access that were concealed by virtue of the barriers' 

presence, which prevented Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, from further ingress, use, and equal 

enjoyment of the Commercial Property and the business therein; Plaintiff requests to be physically 

present at such inspection in conjunction with Rule 34 and timely notice. Plaintiff requests the 

inspection in order to participate in crafting a remediation plan to address Plaintiff’s request for 

injunctive relief.

29. The individual Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly situated, have been 

denied access to, and have been denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities 

privileges, benefits, programs and activities offered by Defendant’s Commercial Property and the 

business within the Commercial Property; and has otherwise been discriminated against and 

damaged by the Defendant because of the Defendants’ ADA violations as set forth above. The 

individual Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, will continue to suffer such discrimination, 

injury and damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested herein. In order 

to remedy the discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Defendants’ place 

of public accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff further requests a remediation plan and the opportunity 

to participate in the crafting of the remediation plan. 

30. Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him 

access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 11 of 14
12 

accommodations of their places of public accommodation or commercial facility, in violation of 

42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendants continue to 

discriminate against Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, by failing to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford 

all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with 

disabilities; and by failing to take such efforts that may be necessary to ensure that no individual 

with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other 

individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services. 

31. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, will suffer irreparable harm, and have 

a clear legal right to the relief sought. Further, injunctive relief will serve the public interest and 

all those similarly situated to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled 

to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses from Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

32. Defendants are required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the 

physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for their place of public similarly 

situated, will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate 

relief provided by the ADA as requested herein. In order to remedy the discriminatory situation, 

the Plaintiff require an inspection of the Defendants’ places of public accommodation in order to 

determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

33. Notice to Defendants is not required as a result of the Defendants’ failure to cure 

the violations by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if a Defendant have 10 or fewer employees 

and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). All other conditions precedent have been met by Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 12 of 14
13 

or waived by the Defendant. 

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

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to alter the property where Defendant operates its 

business, located within the Commercial Property located in Miami-Dade County, the interiors, 

exterior areas, and the common exterior areas of the Commercial Property and business to make 

those facilities readily accessible and useable to the Plaintiff and all other mobility-impaired 

persons; or by closing the facility until such time as the Defendants cure its violations of the ADA.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, respectfully requests that the Honorable 

Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendants, at the commencement of the 

subject lawsuit, was and is in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; (ii) Injunctive relief against Defendants, including an order to make all 

readily achievable alterations to the facilities; or to make such facilities readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA; and to require Defendants 

to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications 

are necessary to afford all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 

accommodations to individuals with disabilities; and by failing to take such steps that may be 

necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or 

otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and 

services; (iii) An award of attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205; and (iv) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 13 of 14
14 

Dated: October 5, 2022 

 

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4937 S.W. 74th Court 

Miami, Florida 33155 

Telephone: (305) 553-3464 

Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 

Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

Secondary E-Mails: bvirues@lawgmp.com 

 dperaza@lawgmp.com

 

By: ___/s/_Anthony J. Perez________ 

 ANTHONY J. PEREZ

 Florida Bar No.: 535451 

 BEVERLY VIRUES

 Florida Bar No.: 123713 

Case 1:22-cv-23241-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 14 of 14