UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

DANIEL LUGO, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 CASE NO. 

CAPITAL VACATIONS, LLC and 

CAPITAL VACATIONS RESORT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

sues the Defendants, CAPITAL VACATIONS, LLC and CAPITAL VACATIONS 

RESORT MANAGEMENT, 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: 

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 Defendants’ violations of Title III of the ADA. 

 PERSONAL JURISDICTION/VENUE

 2. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to Florida 

Statute §48.193(1)(a) for the cause of action at issue herein, which arises from 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 1 of 9
2

business venture in this state and having an office or agency in this state, and 

pursuant to §48.193(2), by Defendants 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 website at issue) occurred 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 due to 

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

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

has limited use of his hands and fingers. Defendants’ online lodging reservation 

systems 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 Defendants are compelled to cure the substantive ADA violations 

contained on their online reservation systems. Plaintiff intends to visit the online 

reservation systems for Defendants’ places of lodging in the near future, and within 

thirty (30) days, to book a place of lodging and utilize the goods, services, 

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 2 of 9
3

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

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

 4. Defendants Capital Vacations Resort Management, LLC and Capital 

Vacations, LLC are the operators of Calypso Cay Resort located at 3000 Bonfire 

Beach Drive in Kissimmee, Florida (“Calypso”). Defendant Capital Vacations, 

LLC is also the operator of Atalaya Towers located at 912 North Waccamaw Drive 

in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina (“Atalaya”); the operator of Sandy Shores III 

located at 1425 North Waccamaw Drive in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina (“Sandy 

Shores”); and the operator of Nautical Mile Resort located at 1072 Post Road in 

Wells, Maine (“The Nautical”). The online reservation systems for Calypso, 

Atalaya, Sandy Shores and the Nautical are accessed through 

www.capitalvacations.com (the "ORS"). 

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 

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 

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

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, 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 

permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel 

or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs;1

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 

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 4 of 9
5

(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 Calypso, the Atalaya, the Sandy Shores and the Nautical are places 

of public accommodation that own and/or lease and operate places of lodging 

pursuant to the ADA. Through Defendants’ ORS, potential patrons may reserve a 

place of lodging. The ORS is subject to the requirements of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e) 

and Defendants are responsible for said compliance. 

 9. Most recently, during October, 2022 Plaintiff attempted to specifically 

identify and book a guaranteed reservation for an accessible place of lodging at the 

Calypso through the ORS but was unable to do so due to Defendants’ failure to 

comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7. After the foregoing 

occurred, Plaintiff attempted to specifically identify and book a guaranteed 

reservation for an accessible place of lodging at the Atalaya through the ORS but 

was unable to do so due to Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements set 

forth in paragraph 7. After the foregoing occurred, Plaintiff attempted to 

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-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

specifically identify and book a guaranteed reservation for an accessible place of 

lodging at the Sandy Shores through the ORS but was unable to do so due to 

Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7. 

After the foregoing occurred, Plaintiff attempted to specifically identify and book a 

guaranteed reservation for an accessible place of lodging at the Nautical 

through the ORS but was unable to do so due to Defendants’ failure to comply 

with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7. 

 10. 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. 

 11. Defendants have 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 Calypso, the Atalaya, the Sandy 

Shores and at the Nautical through the ORS due to the substantive ADA violations 

contained thereon. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration and 

humiliation as the result of the discriminatory conditions present on the ORS. 

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 6 of 9
7

Defendants contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation by the 

continued operation of the ORS with discriminatory conditions. 

 12. The ORS encountered by Plaintiff when he visited it failed to comply 

with any of the requirements of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1). When Plaintiff visited the 

ORS, he tried to make reservations for an accessible place of lodging at the 

Calypso, at the Atalaya, at the Sandy Shores and at the Nautical, since he requires 

an accessible place of lodging due to his inability to walk, but it was not possible to 

make such a reservation. It was possible to reserve a place of lodging that was not 

accessible. For this reason Defendants have no policy, practice, or procedure in 

place to ensure that individuals with disabilities can make reservations for 

accessible places of lodging during the same hours and in the same manner as 

individuals who do not need accessible places of lodging. This constitutes a 

violation of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e)(1)(i). When Plaintiff visited the ORS, he 

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

Calypso, at the Atalaya, at the Sandy Shores, and at the Nautical and places of 

lodging offered through the ORS so that he could assess independently whether the 

Calypso, the Atalaya, the Sandy Shores and the Nautical or a specific place of 

lodging at each met his accessibility needs in light of his disability but the ORS 

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, Defendants also necessarily violated 28 

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1)(iii)-(v) in that since the ORS does not describe any accessible 

place of lodging and does not, in turn, allow the reserving of such accessible place 

of lodging, the Website cannot hold such unavailable accessible places of lodging 

in the ORS until all other units have been rented, block such unavailable accessible 

places of lodging from the system once reserved, and guaranty that such 

unavailable accessible places of lodging will be held for the reserving customer as 

required by sections (iii) - (v) respectively. 

 13. 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 Defendants are required to correct the ADA 

violations to the ORS and maintain it and accompanying policies in a manner that 

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

 14. 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 Defendants, including litigation expenses and costs pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. §12205. 

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

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

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

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 8 of 9
9

requiring Defendants to alter and maintain the ORS 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 Defendants from continuing their discriminatory 

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

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

ORS in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7 above, 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 Blvd, Ste. 302 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone (561) 994-6922 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

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

strictly enforce, a policy requiring regular monitoring of the ORS. As rates and classes of the places of lodging at the 

Calypso, at the Atalaya, at the Sandy Shores and at the Nautical and the number and type of 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 each place of lodging, the ORS must continuously be updated to properly reflect 

and describe Defendants’ compliance with the substantive ADA Standards regarding accessible places of lodging in 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 9 of 9