UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

JOE HOUSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKIER ASSETS, LLC,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JOE HOUSTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues SKIER ASSETS, LLC (hereinafter 

“Defendant”), 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. 

4. Plaintiff, JOE HOUSTON, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

residence in Broward County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.

5. At all times material, Defendant, SKIER ASSETS, LLC, owned a place of public 

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 1 of 10
2

accommodation with a commercial gas station at 3301 N University Drive, Sunrise, Florida 33351

(hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that 

place of public accommodation in Broward County, Florida. Defendant, SKIER ASSETS, LLC, 

and the gas station hold themselves out to the public as “Orion.”

6. At all times material, Defendant, SKIER ASSETS, LLC, was and is a Florida 

Limited Liability Company, organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal 

place of business in Miami, Florida. 

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

Commercial Property is located in Broward County, Florida, Defendant regularly conducts

business within Broward County, Florida, and because a substantial part(s) of the events or 

omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Broward County, Florida.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

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

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

9. 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, Defendant continues to discriminate against people 

who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant’s business and 

property.

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

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance

11. Plaintiff, JOE HOUSTON, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff, JOE HOUSTON, is substantially limited in major life activities 

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 2 of 10
3

due to his impairment and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use 

of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms, which require tight grasping or twisting of the 

wrist.

12. Defendant, SKIER ASSETS, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the Commercial 

Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots specific to the business therein, located in 

Sunrise, Florida, that is the subject of this Action. 

13. Mr. Houston is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming aware of his rights, 

and their repeated infringement, he has dedicated his life to this cause so that he, and others like 

him, may have full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations without the fear of 

discrimination and repeated exposure to architectural barriers in violation of the ADA.

14. He is often frustrated and disheartened by the repetitiveness of the complaints he is 

forced to make to employees and management at different places of public accommodation over 

thirty (30) years after the legislation of the ADA, to no avail. Mr. Houston is accordingly of the 

belief that the only way to affect change is through the mechanisms provided under the ADA.

15. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Sunrise, 

Broward County, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property, to include visits 

to the Commercial Property on or about October 21, 2022 and encountered multiple violations of 

the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. He often 

visits the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there

because it is approximately fourteen (14) miles from his residence and is near other businesses and 

restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the Commercial Property within four (4) 

months of the filing of this Complaint in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered 

at the place of public accommodation and check if it has been remediated of the ADA violations 

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 3 of 10
4

he encountered.

16. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The 

Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his 

patronage and use of each of the premises.

17. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA 

at the subject Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The 

barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff’s ability to 

visit 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, JOE HOUSTON, and others similarly situated.

18. Defendant, SKIER ASSETS, LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public 

accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 

36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendant, SKIER ASSETS, LLC, is responsible for complying with the 

obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation that Defendant, SKIER ASSETS, 

LLC, owns and operates the Commercial Property Business located at 3301 N University Drive, 

Sunrise, Florida 33351

19. Plaintiff, JOE HOUSTON, has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat 

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

described Commercial Property, including but not 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, in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the 

Commercial Property, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the 

Commercial Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial Property is in compliance with 

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 4 of 10
5

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

Commercial Property without fear of discrimination.

20. Defendant has 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, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

ADA VIOLATIONS 

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

20 above as though fully set forth herein.

22. Defendant, SKIER ASSETS, LLC, has discriminated, and continues 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:

A. Parking and Exterior Accessible Route

i. Accessible spaces lack clear and level aisles and they have slopes or cross slope of 3.6% (>2%) 

violating the ADAAG Section 4.6 and ADAS Section 502 and endangering the Plaintiff when 

unloading.

ii. Accessible spaces lack clear and level aisles and they have slopes or cross slope of 3.3% (>2%) 

violating the ADAAG Section 4.6 and ADAS Section 502 and endangering the Plaintiff when 

unloading.

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. There is no compliant route from transit, sidewalk, and parking areas for Plaintiff to access 

the Orion gas station, which violates ADAAG Sections 4.1.2 and 4.3 and 2010 ADAS Sections 

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 5 of 10
6

402, 403, 405 and 406.

ii. Accessible route surface at the Orion gas station has hazardous conditions for Plaintiff, 

violating the ADAAG Section 4.5 and 2010 ADAS Section 302.1

C. Access to Goods and Services

i. Table-top and writing surface heights are >34" (28” min / 34” max), violating 2010 ADAS 

902 and preventing use by Plaintiff.

ii. There is inadequate clear floor space to access goods (30”x48” min), violating the ADAAG 

4.2 and impeding Plaintiff.

D. Restrooms

i. Restroom door has improper hardware, violating ADAAG Section 4.13.9 and preventing 

Plaintiff from accessing the restroom at the Orion gas station.

ii. Sinks mounted 37" AFF (34” max) to rims, violating ADAAG Section 4.24 and 2010 ADAS 

Section 606 and denying access to Plaintiff.

iii. Grab bars extend <54" from rear wall, violating the ADAAG Section 4.16 and 4.26 and 2010 

ADAS Sections 604 and 609, creating a hazardous condition for Plaintiff.

iv. Mounted items are <12" above grab bar (12” min), violating 2010 ADAS 604 and preventing 

use by Plaintiff.

v. Toilet flush valve not mounted on wide side, denying access to Plaintiff, violating the ADAAG 

Section 4.16 and 2010 ADAS Sec. 604.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

23. The discriminatory violations described in the Complaint are not an exclusive list 

of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendant’s places of 

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 6 of 10
7

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, JOE HOUSTON, from further ingress, use, and equal 

enjoyment of the Commercial Business; 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. The 

remediations for the ADA violations listed herein are readily achievable.

24. 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, Defendant’s buildings, 

businesses and facilities; and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the 

Defendant because of the Defendant’s 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 this 

discriminatory situation, The Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Defendant’s place of public 

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

Disabilities Act. Plaintiff requests the inspection in order to participate in crafting a remediation 

plan to address Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

25. Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access 

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

accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility, in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, Defendant continues to 

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 7 of 10
8

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.

26. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, will suffer irreparable harm, and has 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 Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

27. A Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the 

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

accommodation, The 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 this discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff requires an inspection of the 

Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

28. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of the Defendant’s failure to cure the 

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

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

or waived by the Defendant.

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

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 8 of 10
9

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

business, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 3301 N University Drive, 

Sunrise, Florida 33351, the exterior areas, and the common exterior areas of the Commercial 

Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property, 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 Defendant cures the violations of the ADA.

 WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff, JOE HOUSTON, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendant at the commencement 

of the subject lawsuit were and are in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; (ii) Injunctive relief against Defendant 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 Defendant 

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.

Dated: December 5, 2022

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4937 S.W. 74th Court

Miami, Florida 33155

Case 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 9 of 10
10

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 0:22-cv-62265-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 10 of 10