UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

JOE HOUSTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

LA SHOPS, LLC D/B/A LA SHOPS and 

GRUPO CORZO, INC. D/B/A SALIMAR 

CEVICHE BAR, 

Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), LA SHOPS, LLC D/B/A LA SHOPS and 

GRUPO CORZO, INC. D/B/A SALIMAR CEVICHE BAR (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. 

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

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 1 of 12
2 

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

5. At all times material, Defendant, LA SHOPS, LLC, owned and operated a 

commercial shopping center at 79-199 E Oakland Park Blvd Sunrise, Florida 33334 (hereinafter 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida. 

6. At all times material, Defendant, LA SHOPS, 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 Oakland Park, Florida. Defendant, LA SHOPS, LLC, holds itself out to the public as 

“LA Shops.” 

7. At all times material, Defendant, GRUPO CORZO, INC., owned and operated a 

commercial shopping center at 199 E Oakland Park Blvd, Oakland Park, FL 33334 (hereinafter 

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

accommodation in Broward County, Florida. 

8. At all times material, Defendant, GRUPO CORZO, INC., was and is a Florida 

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

place of business in Oakland Park, Florida. Defendant, GRUPO CORZO, INC., holds itself out 

to the public as “Salimar Ceviche Bar.”

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

Commercial Property is located in Broward County, Florida, Defendants regularly conduct 

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

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

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 2 of 12
3 

the ADA, Defendants have 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’ businesses 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, 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 

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.. 

14. Defendant, LA SHOPS, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the Commercial 

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

Oakland Park, Florida, that is the subject of this Action. 

15. Defendant, GRUPO CORZO, INC., owns, operates and/or oversees the restaurant 

business located within the Commercial Property, located in Oakland Park, Florida, that is the 

subject of this Action. 

16. 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. 

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 3 of 12
4 

17. 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. 

18. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Oakland 

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

visits to the Commercial Property on or about October 20, 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 seven (7) 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. 

19. 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. 

20. The Plaintiff 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 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.

21. Defendants, LA SHOPS, LLC and GRUPO CORZO, INC., own and/or operate a 

place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the 

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 4 of 12
5 

ADA, 28 CFR 36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendants, LA SHOPS, LLC and GRUPO CORZO, INC., 

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

accommodation that Defendants, LA SHOPS, LLC and GRUPO CORZO, INC., own and/or 

operate the Commercial Property Business located at 79-199 E Oakland Park Blvd Oakland Park, 

Florida 33351. 

22. Plaintiff, JOE HOUSTON, 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, 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 and the business located within the Commercial 

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

business located within 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

and the 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 the 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 the business located within the 

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

COUNT I - ADA VIOLATIONS 

AS TO LA SHOPS, LLC

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

23 above as though fully set forth herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 5 of 12
6 

25. Defendant, LA SHOPS, 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 and the business within 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. The access aisles contain slopes or cross 

slope of >6% (>2%) violating the ADAAG Section 4.6 and ADAS Section 502 and 

endangering 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 shopping center, violating ADAAG Sections 4.1.2 and 4.3 and 2010 ADAS 

Sections 402, 403, 405 and 406. 

ii. Accessible routes throughout the shopping center have >5% cross slopes (>2%) 

violating ADAAG Section 4.3 and 2010 ADAS Sections 402 and 403 and creating 

hazardous conditions for Plaintiff.

iii. Accessible routes to the parking area have 3.5% cross slopes (>2%) violating ADAAG 

Section 4.3 and 2010 ADAS Sections 402 and 403 and creating hazardous conditions 

for Plaintiff.

iv. Accessible routes throughout the shopping center have 6% cross slopes (>2%) 

violating ADAAG Section 4.3 and 2010 ADAS Sections 402 and 403 and creating 

hazardous conditions for Plaintiff.

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 6 of 12
7 

v. Accessible routes from the parking area to the shopping enter have 7% cross slopes 

(>2%) violating ADAAG Section 4.3 and 2010 ADAS Sections 402 and 403 and 

creating hazardous conditions for Plaintiff. 

vi. Curb ramps from the sidewalk of the shopping center contain excessive slopes of 15% 

(>8.33 %) violating ADAAG 4.7 and ADAS Section 406 and preventing Plaintiff from 

safe unloading. 

vii. Curb ramps to the parking area contain excessive cross slopes of 4% (>2%) violating 

ADAAG 4.7 and ADAS Section 406 and preventing Plaintiff from safe unloading.

viii. Doors in Salimar Ceviche Bar have inadequate maneuvering clearance of > 5% (see 

chart) violating ADAAG Section 4.13 and 2010 ADAS Section 404 and Table 

404.2.4.2 and preventing use by Plaintiff. 

COUNT II - ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO LA SHOPS, LLC and GRUPO CORZO, 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, LA SHOPS, LLC and GRUPO CORZO, 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 Defendants have 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 and the business within the Commercial 

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

A. Access to Goods and Services

i. Table knee and toe space is 0" high and deep ((27”/17” min), violating ADAAG 

Section 4.15 and preventing use by Plaintiff. 

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 7 of 12
8 

ii. Salimar Ceviche Bar serves food and/or drinks with (<5%) of seating spaces at tables 

and counters violating the ADAAG Section 4.5 and 2010 ADAS Section 902. 

B. Restrooms 

i. Maneuvering space is inadequate, violating 2010 ADAS Section 404 and impeding 

Plaintiff from entering or exiting the restroom.

ii. Sink knee clearance 0" (27” min @ 8” deep), which violates ADAAG Section 4.24 and 

2010 ADAS Section 306 and preventing Plaintiff from accessing sink. 

iii. Plaintiff unable to use Mirror due to bottom-reflecting surface 44" AFF (40” AFF max), 

violating the ADAAG Section 4.19 and 2010 ADAS Section 603. 

iv. Plaintiff cannot safely transfer to water closet at Salimar Ceviche Bar due to a lack of 

clear floor space in violation of 2010 ADAS Section 604. 

v. Toilet stalls at Salimar Ceviche Bar are inaccessible to Plaintiff, violating ADAAG 

Section 4.17 and 2010 ADAS Section 604. 

vi. Stall door is not self-closing and/or lacks proper hardware, violating 2010 ADAS 

Section 604 and preventing use by Plaintiff. 

vii. Grab bars do not comply with the ADAAG Section 4.26 and 2010 ADAS Sections 604 

and 609, creating a hazardous condition for Plaintiff. 

viii. Toilet has improper centerline >18" from side wall; (16” to 18”), violating 2010 ADAS 

Section 604 and denying access to Plaintiff. 

ix. Toilet flush valve not mounted on wide side, violating the ADAAG 4.16 and 2010 

ADAS Section 604. 

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

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

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 8 of 12
9 

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, 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. 

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 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.

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 

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

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 9 of 12
10 

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. 

31. 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 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 

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. 

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 Defendants have 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 Defendants. 

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 10 of 12
11 

34. 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 Defendant’s operate their 

business, located at and/or within the Commercial Property located at 79-199 E Oakland Park Blvd 

Sunrise, Florida 33334, 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 Defendants cure the violations of the ADA. 

 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, JOE HOUSTON, 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 5, 2022 

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 11 of 12
12 

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 0:22-cv-62266-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 12 of 12