UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DANIEL LUGO, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 CASE NO. 

ZERBY HOTEL, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, Daniel Lugo, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby sues 

the Defendant, ZERBY HOTEL, LLC, for injunctive relief pursuant to the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181, et seq. (the "ADA") and in 

support thereof states as follows: 

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION 

1. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction since this action arises pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and §1343 and Plaintiff’s claims arise under 42 U.S.C. §12181 

et seq. based upon Defendant's violations of Title III of the ADA.

 PERSONAL JURISDICTION/VENUE

 2. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Statute 

§48.193(1)(a) for the causes of action at issue herein, which arise from Defendant 

operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in 

this state and having an office or agency in this state, and pursuant to §48.193(2), 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 1 of 12
2

by Defendant being engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this 

state . Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) since a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim at issue (Plaintiff 

visiting the websites at issue in Boca Raton, Florida) occurred in this district and 

the hotels at issue are located in this district. 

PARTIES 

 3. Plaintiff, Daniel Lugo, is an individual who is over eighteen years of age 

and sui juris. Plaintiff is disabled as such term is defined by the ADA and is 

substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities (walking) due 

to permanent damage to his spinal cord as a result of a broken neck caused by a 

motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff must always use a wheelchair to ambulate. 

Plaintiff also has limited use of his hands and fingers. The online hotel reservation 

systems for Defendant's hotels, as well as a third party reservations service that 

provides the public with the ability to reserve a room at Defendant’s hotels, fail to 

comply with any of the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e) and therefore 

Plaintiff's full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations offered thereon are restricted and limited 

because of Plaintiff’s disability and will be restricted in the future unless and until 

Defendant is compelled to comply with the ADA’s requirements with regard to the 

online reservations services providing for reserving rooms at Defendant’s hotels. 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 2 of 12
3

Plaintiff intends to visit the online reservation services described herein in the near 

future, and within thirty (30) days, to book a room and utilize the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations being offered and/or to 

test the online reservation services for compliance with 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e). 

 4. Defendant is the operator and/or owner of the Old Town Manor 

located at 511 Eaton Street in Key West, Florida ("the Manor”). The online 

reservation system for the Manor is found at oldtownmanor.com. Defendant is 

also the operator and/or owner of the Rose Lane Villas located at 522-524 Rose 

Lane in Key West, Florida ("the Rose”). The online reservation system for the 

Rose is found at roselanevillas.com. A third party reservation service which 

provides for the reserving of rooms at the Manor and at the Rose (which does not 

provide for the reserving of rooms that are identified or described as accessible and 

which does not describe the accessible or inaccessible features within the common 

areas of the Manor or the Rose) is booking.com, (“the Third Party Reservations 

Service”). The Manor’s reservation system, the Rose’s reservation system and the 

Third Party Reservations Service are collectively referred to herein as the 

"Reservations Services". 

CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE ADA

 5. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA explaining that the 

purpose of the ADA was to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 3 of 12
4

for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to 

provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing said 

discrimination, invoking the sweep of congressional authority in order to address 

the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities to 

ensure that the Federal government plays a central role in enforcing the standards 

set by the ADA. (42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)-(4)). 

 6. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on September 15, 

2010, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Office of the Attorney General, 

published revised regulations for Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act 

of 1990 in the Federal Register to implement the requirements of the ADA. Public 

accommodations, including places of lodging, were required to conform to these 

regulations on or before March 15, 2012. 

 7. On March 15, 2012, new regulations implementing Title III of the 

ADA took effect, imposing significant new obligations on inns, motels, hotels and 

other "places of lodging". 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e) states: 

 ''(1) Reservations made by places of lodging. A public accommodation that 

owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of lodging shall, with respect to 

reservations made by any means, including by telephone, in-person, or through a 

third party - 

(i) Modify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that individuals with 

disabilities can make reservations for accessible guest rooms during the same hours 

and in the same manner as individuals who do not need accessible rooms; 

(ii) Identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered 

through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 4 of 12
5

permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel 

or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs;1

(iii) Ensure that accessible guest rooms are held for use by individuals with 

disabilities until all other guest rooms of that type have been rented and the 

accessible room requested is the only remaining room of that type; 

(iv) Reserve, upon request, accessible guest rooms or specific types of guest rooms 

and ensure that the guest rooms requested are blocked and removed from all 

reservations systems; and 

(v) Guarantee that the specific accessible guest room reserved through its 

reservations service is held for the reserving customer, regardless of whether a 

specific room is held in response to reservations made by others." 

 8. The DOJ Official Comments to 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e) (1) specifically 

address the common use of third party reservations services in the hotel industry 

and the hotel industry’s attempts to exclude such sites from the requirements of the 

regulation. In rejecting this request, the DOJ, in the DOJ Official Comments, 

states as follows: 

 “Hotels and organizations commenting on their behalf also requested that 

 the language be changed to eliminate any liability for reservations made 

 through third parties, arguing that they are unable to control the actions of 

 unrelated parties. The rule, both as proposed and as adopted, requires 

 covered public accommodations to ensure that reservations made on their 

 behalf by third parties are made in a manner that results in parity between 

 those who need accessible rooms and those who do not.” 

1 The United States Department of Justice, in "28 C.F.R. Appendix A to Part 36, Guidance on Revisions to ADA 

Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities", 

provides a section-by-section analysis of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1). In its analysis and guidance, the Department of 

Justice's official comments state that "information about the Hotel should include, at a minimum, information about 

accessible entrances to the hotel, the path of travel to guest check-in and other essential services, and the accessible 

route to the accessible room or rooms. In addition to the room information described above, these hotels should 

provide information about important features that do not comply with the 1991 Standards." An agency's 

interpretation of its own regulations, such as the Department of Justice's interpretation of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1), 

must be given "substantial deference" and "controlling weight" unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with 

the regulation." Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994).

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 5 of 12
6

9. The Manor and the Rose are places of public accommodation that own 

and/or lease and operate places of lodging pursuant to the ADA. The Reservations 

Services enable members of the public to reserve a guest room at the Manor and at 

the Rose. The Reservations Services are subject to the requirements of 28 C.F.R.§ 

36.302(e) and Defendant is responsible for said compliance. 

 10. Most recently, during November, 2022 Plaintiff attempted to 

specifically identify and book a guaranteed reservation for an accessible hotel 

room at the Manor and at the Rose from the Reservations Services but was unable 

to do so due to the failure of these services to comply with the requirements set 

forth in paragraph 7. 

 11. Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled 

persons and, pursuant to Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 

(11th Cir. 2013), is a "tester" for the purpose of asserting his civil rights, 

monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation, 

including online reservation systems for places of lodging, are in compliance with 

the ADA. 

 12. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him access 

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

advantages and accommodations offered at the Manor and at the Rose through the 

Reservations Services due to the substantive ADA violations contained thereon. 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 6 of 12
7

Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation as the 

result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Reservations Services. 

Defendant contributes to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation by the 

continued operation of the Reservations Services with discriminatory conditions. 

COUNT I-CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE ADA

THE MANOR’S AND THE ROSE’S RESERVATION SYSTEMS 

 13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 above 

herein. 

 14. The online reservation systems for the Manor and for the 

Rose encountered by Plaintiff when he visited them failed to comply with the 

requirements of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1). When Plaintiff visited the Manor’s and 

the Rose’s online reservation systems, he tried to make a reservation for an 

accessible hotel room at the Manor and at the Rose, since he requires an accessible 

hotel room due to his inability to walk, but it was not possible to make such a 

reservation. It was possible to reserve a hotel room that was not accessible. For this 

reason Defendant has no policy, practice, or procedure in place to ensure that 

individuals with disabilities can make reservations for accessible hotel rooms 

during the same hours and in the same manner as individuals who do not need 

accessible hotel rooms. This constitutes a violation of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1)(i). 

When Plaintiff visited the Manor’s and the Rose’s online reservation systems, he 

searched the sites for the identification and descriptions of accessible features at 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 7 of 12
8

the Manor and at the Rose and hotel rooms offered through the reservation services 

so that he could assess independently whether the Manor and/or the 

Rose or a specific hotel room met his accessibility needs in light of his disability 

but the reservation services contained no such descriptions at all. This constitutes a 

violation of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1)(ii). In light of the foregoing, Defendant also 

necessarily violated 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1)(iii)-(v) in that since the online 

reservation services do not describe any accessible hotel room and do not, in turn, 

allow the reserving of such accessible hotel room, the reservation services cannot 

hold such unavailable accessible hotel room in the reservation systems until all 

other units have been rented, block such unavailable accessible hotel rooms from 

the systems once reserved, and guaranty that such unavailable accessible hotel 

rooms will be held for the reserving customer as required by sections (iii) - (v) 

respectively. 

 15. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law and is suffering 

irreparable harm and he reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer 

irreparable harm unless and until Defendant is required to correct the ADA 

violations to the online reservation systems for the Manor and for the Rose and 

maintain the online reservation systems and accompanying policies in a manner 

that is consistent with and compliant with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. 

§36.302(e). 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 8 of 12
9

 16. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and 

prosecution of this action and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs 

and expenses from Defendant, including litigation expenses and costs pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. §12205. 

 17. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), this Court is provided with authority 

to grant injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including an Order compelling Defendant to 

implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to accommodate the disabled, by 

requiring Defendant to alter and maintain its online reservation systems in 

accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7 above.2

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Daniel Lugo, requests that the Court issue a 

permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing its discriminatory 

practices, ordering Defendant to implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to 

accommodate the disabled, through requiring Defendant to alter and maintain the 

online reservation systems for the Manor and for the Rose in accordance with the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 7 above, and awarding Plaintiff reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, including expert fees, and costs. 

2 The injunction, to be meaningful and fulfill its intended purpose, should require Defendant to develop, and strictly 

enforce, a policy requiring regular monitoring of its online reservations system. As rates and classes of hotel rooms 

at the Manor and at the Rose, and the number and type of hotel rooms, beds, accommodations and amenities offered 

in the various unit types change from time to time, the availability of accessible units must be re-dispersed across 

these various price points, classes, as well as across units with disparate features (2010 ADA Standard 224.5). In 

light of the foregoing, in addition to regular ongoing website maintenance and to reflect physical changes at the 

Manor and at the Rose, the online reservations systems must continuously be updated to properly reflect and 

describe Defendant's compliance with the substantive ADA Standards regarding accessible hotel rooms in 

accordance with 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(1).

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 9 of 12
10

COUNT II-CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE ADA 

THE THIRD PARTY RESERVATION SERVICE 

 18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 above 

herein. 

 19. The ADA violations for the Third Party Reservations Service 

encountered by Plaintiff consist of the following: 

 a) A failure of any policy, practice, or procedure ensuring that 

 individuals with disabilities can make reservations for accessible guest 

 rooms during the same hours and in the same manner as individuals 

 who do not need accessible rooms; and 

b) A failure to identify and describe accessible features in the hotel and 

 guest rooms offered through the reservations service in enough detail 

 to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess 

 independently whether the hotel or specific guest rooms meets his or 

 her accessibility needs. 

. 

 20. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law and is suffering 

irreparable harm and he reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer 

irreparable harm unless and until Defendant enacts appropriate policies and makes 

reasonable efforts to make accessible rooms available through the Third Party 

Reservation Service and provides this service with information concerning the 

accessible and inaccessible features of the Manor and of the Rose and accessible 

rooms such that the operator of the service is able to correct the ADA violations on 

the system and maintain it, as to the Manor and the Rose, in a manner that is 

consistent with and compliant with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e). 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 10 of 12
11

 21. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and 

prosecution of this action and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs 

and expenses from Defendant, including litigation expenses and costs pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. §12205. 

 22. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), this Court is provided with 

authority to grant injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including an Order compelling 

Defendant to implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to accommodate the 

disabled in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7 above.3

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Daniel Lugo, requests that the Court issue a 

permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing its discriminatory 

practices, ordering Defendant to implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to 

accommodate the disabled, and to make reasonable efforts to have accessible 

rooms available for reserving through the Third Party Reservation Service by 

providing this service with information concerning the accessible and inaccessible 

features of the Manor and of the Rose and accessible rooms such that the operator 

of this site is able to correct the ADA violations on the site and maintain them, as 

3 The injunction, to be meaningful and fulfill its intended purpose, should require Defendant to develop, and strictly 

enforce, a policy requiring regular monitoring of the online Reservation Services. As rates and classes of rooms 

change at the Manor and at the Rose, and the number and type of beds, accommodations and amenities offered in 

the various room types change from time to time, the availability of accessible rooms must be re-dispersed across 

these various price points, classes, as well as across rooms with disparate features (2010 ADA Standard 224.5). In 

light of the foregoing, to reflect physical changes at the Manor and at the Rose, the Reservations Services must 

continuously be updated to properly reflect and describe Defendant's compliance with the substantive ADA 

Standards regarding accessible hotel rooms in accordance with 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(1), which can only be 

accomplished with Defendant’s cooperation and participation with this Reservation Service.

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 11 of 12
12

to the Manor and as to the Rose, in a manner that is consistent with and compliant 

with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e), and awarding Plaintiff reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, including expert fees and costs. 

s/Lee D. Sarkin 

DREW M. LEVITT 

Florida Bar No: 782246 

drewmlevitt@gmail.com 

LEE D. SARKIN 

Florida Bar No. 962848 

Lsarkin@aol.com 

4700 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard 

 Suite 302 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone (561) 994-6922 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 12 of 12