UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

CARLOS BRITO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C. D/B/A FLAGLER SQUARE, 

EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, INC. 

D/B/A EL CAMINANTE and SUBWAY AT FLAGLER

SQUARE LLC D/B/A SUBWAY #29579, 

Defendants.

______________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C. D/B/A 

FLAGLER SQUARE, EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, INC. D/B/A EL 

CAMINANTE and SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC D/B/A SUBWAY #29579

(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 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 1 of 16
2 

U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. 

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, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C., owned and operated 

a commercial shopping center located at 11317 W Flagler St, Miami, Florida 33174 (hereinafter 

the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public 

accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

6. At all times material, Defendant, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C., 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. At all times material, Defendant, EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT 

CAFETERIA, INC., owned and operated a commercial restaurant located at 11359 W Flagler St, 

Miami, FLORIDA 33174 (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial 

amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

Defendant, EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, INC., holds itself out to the public 

as “El Caminante.” 

8. At all times material, Defendant, EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT 

CAFETERIA, INC., was and is a Florida For-Profit Corporation, incorporated under the laws of 

the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. 

9. At all times material, Defendant, SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC, 

owned and operated a commercial restaurant located at 11317 West Flagler Street Miami, 

FLORIDA 33174 (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 2 of 16
3 

of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant, 

SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC, holds itself out to the public as “Subway #29579.” 

10. At all times material, Defendant, SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC, was 

and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida, 

with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. 

11. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because Defendants’ 

Commercial Property 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

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

of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make its facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities.

13. 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’ businesses and 

properties. 

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

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. 

15. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 3 of 16
4 

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

the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

16. Defendant, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C., owns, operates and/or oversees the 

Commercial Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots specific to the businesses 

therein, located in Miami, Florida, that is the subject of this Action. 

17. Defendants, EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, INC. and 

SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC, own, operate and/or oversee their respective 

businesses, located within the Defendant’s Commercial Property, located in Miami, Florida, that 

is the subject of this Action.

18. Mr. Brito is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming aware of his rights, 

and their repeated infringement, he has dedicated much of 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. 

19. 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. Brito is accordingly of the belief 

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

20. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located 

within the Commercial Property, to include a visit to the Commercial Property and businesses 

located within the Commercial Property on or about June 24, 2021 and on November 1, 2022 and 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 4 of 16
5 

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 and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the 

Commercial Property and the businesses located within the Commercial Property within two (2) 

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 

he encountered. 

21. The Plaintiff 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 businesses located within the Commercial Property and 

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

22. 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, and the businesses 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.

23. Defendants, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C., EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT 

CAFETERIA, INC. and SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC, own and/or operate a place 

of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 5 of 16
6 

CFR 36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendants, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C., EL CAMINANTE 

RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, INC. and SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC, are 

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

that Defendants, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C., EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, 

INC. and SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC, own and operate the Commercial Property

and businesses located within the Commercial Property, located at 11317 W Flagler St, Miami, 

Florida 33174. 

24. 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 businesses located within the Commercial Property, 

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

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

at the Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, in violation 

of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial Property and businesses 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 businesses 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 businesses located within the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination. 

25. Defendant, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C., as landlord and owner of the Commercial 

Property, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in Counts I through III, along with the 

Defendant’s tenants, listed on end counts. 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 6 of 16
7 

26. 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 businesses located within the Commercial Property, but not 

necessarily limited to the allegations in Counts I through III of this Complaint. Plaintiff has 

reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the 

Commercial Property, and businesses 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 

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

Property, and businesses 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 businesses located within the Commercial Property without fear of 

discrimination.

27. 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 businesses located within the 

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

COUNT I – ADA VIOLATIONS 

AS TO FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C.

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

27 above as though fully set forth herein. 

29. Defendants, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C., have discriminated, and continues to 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 7 of 16
8 

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 

i. The plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as designated accessible parking spaces are 

located on an excessive slope. Violation: There are accessible parking spaces located on 

an excessive slope violating Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG and Section 502.4 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

ii. The plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as designated accessible parking space 

access aisles are located on an excessive slope. Violation: There are accessible parking 

space access aisles located on an excessive slope violating Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG 

and Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. 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. 

ii. The plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel due to abrupt changes in level. 

Violation: There are 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.

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 8 of 16
9 

iii. The plaintiff had difficulty using some of the curb ramps, as the slopes are excessive. 

Violation: There are curb ramps at the facility that contain excessive slopes, violating 

Section 4.7.2 of the ADAAG and Sections 405.2 and 406.1 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 exiting tenant spaces without assistance, as the required 

maneuvering clearance is not provided. Violation: The tenant entrance doors do not 

provide the required latch side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and 

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

COUNT II – ADA VIOLATIONS 

AS TO FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C. and EL 

CAMINANTE RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, INC. 

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

27 above as though fully set forth herein. 

31. Defendants, FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C. and EL CAMINANTE RESTAURANT 

CAFETERIA, INC., have 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: 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 9 of 16
10 

A. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. The plaintiff could not traverse through areas of the restaurant, as the required 36” path is not 

provided. Violation: A continuous path of travel connecting all essential elements of the 

restaurant is not provided, violating Sections 4.2.1, 4.3.2(3), & 4.3.3 of the ADAAG and 

Sections 206.2.2 & 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

ii. Access to Goods and Services\ 

i. There is seating provided at the facility 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.

iii. Public Restrooms 

i. The restroom signage is not mounted at the required location, violating Section 4.30.6 of the 

ADAAG and Section 703.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

ii. The plaintiff could not enter the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance was not provided due to objects that obstruct the clear floor space. Violation: 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. 

iii. The plaintiff had difficulty using the doorknob and the locking mechanism on the restroom 

door without assistance, as they require tight grasping. Violation: The restroom door has noncompliant hardware for disabled patrons, violating Sections 4.13.9 & 4.27.4 of the ADAAG 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 10 of 16
11

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

achievable.

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

wrapped. Violation: The lavatory pipes are not fully wrapped or insulated violating Section 

4.19.4 of the ADAAG and Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

v. The plaintiff could not use the lavatory without assistance, as the required knee clearance width 

is 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 306.3.5 & 606.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

vi. The plaintiff could not use the toilet compartment without assistance, as one of the required 

size is not provided: Violation: The toilet compartments provided for public use at the facility 

are in violation of Section 4.17.3 and Figure 30(a) of the ADAAG and Section 604.8.1 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vii. The plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet in the accessible toilet compartment without 

assistance, as the rear grab bar is missing and the side grab bar is not the required length. 

Violation: The grab bars in the accessible toilet compartment do not comply with the 

requirements prescribed in Section 4.17.6 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.5 and 609 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

viii. The plaintiff had difficulty using the toilet without assistance, as it is not mounted at the 

required distance from the side wall. Violation: The water closet in the accessible toilet 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 11 of 16
12 

compartment is mounted at a non-compliant distance from the wall in violation of Section 

4.17.3 and Figure 30(a) of the ADAAG and Section 604.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

ix. The plaintiff could not use the soap bottle without assistance, as it requires a tight grasp to 

operate. Violation: The soap dispensers require a tight grasp to operate in violation of Section 

4.27.4 of the ADAAG and Section 309.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

x. 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. 

COUNT III – ADA VIOLATIONS 

AS TO FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C. and SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC

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

25 above as though fully set forth herein. 

33. Defendants, FLAMINGO EAST LTD. and ISABEL RESTAURANT INC, have 

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. Public Restrooms 

i. The plaintiff could not enter the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance is not provided. Violation: The restroom door does not provide the required latch 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 12 of 16
13 

side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

ii. The plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as a trashcan obstructs the clear 

floor space. Violation: The required clear floor space is not provided next to the toilet, violating 

Section 4.16.2 & Figure 28 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 604.3 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

iii. The plaintiff had difficulty using the toilet without assistance, as it is not mounted at the 

required distance from the side wall. Violation: The water closet is mounted at a non-compliant 

distance from the side wall, violating Section 4.16.2 and Figure 28 of the ADAAG and Section 

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

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

34. The discriminatory violations described in Counts I through III are not an exclusive 

list of the Defendants’ ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendants’ places 

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 Business and businesses located within the Commercial 

Property; 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.

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 13 of 16
14 

35. 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 Defendants, Defendants’ buildings, 

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

Defendants 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 

this 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 requests the inspection in order to participate in crafting 

a remediation plan to address Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

36. 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 

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, 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.

37. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, will suffer irreparable harm, and has a 

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 14 of 16
15 

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. 

38. Defendants are 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 

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

39. 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 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. 

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

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to alter the property where Defendants operate their 

businesses, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 11317 W Flagler St, 

Miami, Florida 33174, 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 Defendants cure the violations of the ADA.

Case 1:22-cv-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 15 of 16
16 

 WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff, CARLOS BRITO, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendants 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 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.

Dated: December 14, 2022. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 

Coral Gables, Fl 33134 

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-24041-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 16 of 16