UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

DOUG LONGHINI,

Plaintiff,

v. 

THE MORTGAGE BANK 

BUILDING, LLC., 

Defendant.

/ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues THE MORTGAGE BANK 

BUILDING, 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, DOUG LONGHINI, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 1 of 12
2

residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.

5. At all times material, Defendant, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC., owned 

and operated a commercial building at 7200 NW 7th Street Miami, Florida 33126 (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, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC., 

was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, organized under the laws 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 Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendant regularly conducts 

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

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

the ADA, Defendant has yet to make itsfacilities 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 hasreceived since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people 

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

businesses therein. 

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, DOUG LONGHINI, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 2 of 12
3

pursuant to the ADA. DOUG LONGHINI uses a wheelchair to ambulate. DOUG LONGHINI 

has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping 

or twisting of the wrist. He also has a great deal of trouble walking or otherwise ambulating 

without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but 

not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching.

12. Defendant, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC., owns, operates and

oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the 

businesses therein.

13. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Miami,

Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property, to include a visit to the Commercial 

Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property on or about August 17, 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 and businesses located within the

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

it is approximately eleven (11) miles from his residence, and is near his friends’ residences as well

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

Property within two (2) months from the date of the filing of this Complaint. 

14. The Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, found 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.

15. The Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, has encountered architectural barriers that are in

violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at Defendant’s 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 3 of 12
4

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, DOUG LONGHINI, and others similarly situated.

16. Defendant, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC., owns and 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, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC., is

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

that Defendant, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC., owns and operates the Commercial 

Property Business located at 7200 NW 7th Street Miami, Florida 33126.

17. Defendant, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC., as landlord and owner

of the Commercial Property, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in this Complaint.

18. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, 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 of 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 and businesses located therein, 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 the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal 

enjoyment of the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination.

19. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 4 of 12
5

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

ADA VIOLATIONS

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

19 above as though fully set forth herein. 

21. Defendant, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, 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 

i. There are accessible parking spaces that do not provide signs designating them as accessible, 

violating Section 4.6.4 of the ADAAG and Section 502.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable. 

ii. The Plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as an access aisle of the required width is not 

provided. Violation: There are accessible parking spaces that do not have compliant access 

aisles provided, violating Sections 4.1.2(5a) and 4.6.3 of the ADAAG and Section 502.3.1 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 5 of 12
6

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

Violation: There are vertical 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.

iii. The Plaintiff had difficulty on the path of travel at the facility, as ramps do not have compliant 

handrails violating Section 4.8.5 of the ADAAG and Section 405.8 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

iv. The Plaintiff had difficulty using ramps, as they are located on an excessive slope. Violation: 

Ramps at the facility contain excessive slopes, violating Section 4.8.2 of the ADAAG and 

Section 405.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

v. The Plaintiff had difficulty entering tenant spaces without assistance, as the door hardware 

requires tight grasping. Violation: The tenant entrance doors have non-compliant hardware 

for disabled patrons, violating Section 4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 404.2.7 

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

C. Access to Goods and Services

i. There are drinking fountains that don’t provide access to those who have difficulty bending 

or stooping. Violation: There are drinking fountains that are in violation of Section 4.1.3(10) 

of the ADAAG and Sections 211.2 & 602.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

D. Public Restrooms 

i. There are permanently designated interior spaces without proper signage, violating Section 

4.1.3(16) and 4.30 of the ADAAG and Sections 216.2 and 703 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 6 of 12
7

ii. The Plaintiff could not exit the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering 

clearance was not provided due to the location of a trashcan. 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 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 

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

achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff could not use the accessible toilet compartment door without assistance, as it is 

not self-closing and does not have compliant door hardware. Violation: The accessible toilet 

compartment door does not provide hardware and features that comply with Sections 4.17.5 

and 4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. 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.

vi. The Plaintiff could not use the coat hook without assistance, as it is mounted too high. 

Violation: There are coat hooks provided for public use in the restroom, outside the reach 

ranges prescribed in Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.25.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 308 and 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 7 of 12
8

vii. The Plaintiff could not use the toilet paper dispenser without assistance, as it is not mounted 

at the required location. Violation: The toilet paper dispenser in the accessible toilet 

compartment is not mounted in accordance with Section 4.17.6 and Figure 30(d) of the 

ADAAG and Section 604.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

viii. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the grab bars are missing. 

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.

ix. The Plaintiff had difficulty entering the restroom without assistance, as the door threshold 

is too high. Violation: There are threshold rises in excess of 1⁄2 inch at the restroom entrances, 

violating Section 4.13.8 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

x. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as objects are mounted less 

than 12” above a grab bar obstructing its use. Violation: The grab bars in the accessible toilet 

compartment do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Sections 4.17.6 and 4.26 of 

the ADAAG and Section 609.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

xi. 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.

xii. The Plaintiff could not use the lavatory without assistance, as the required knee clearance is 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 8 of 12
9

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 and 606.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

xiii. 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.

xiv. The Plaintiff could not use the paper towel dispenser without assistance, as it is mounted too 

high. Violation: There are dispensers provided for public use in the restroom, with controls 

outside the ranges prescribed in Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.27.3 of the ADAAG and 

Sections 308 & 309.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

22. The discriminatory violations described in this Complaint are not an exclusive list 

of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendant’s 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, DOUG LONGHINI, from further ingress, use, and equal 

enjoyment of the Commercial; Plaintiff requests to be physically present at such inspection in

conjunction with Rule 34 and timely notice. A 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-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 9 of 12
10

23. The 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’s Commercial Property and the businesses 

within the Commercial Property; and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by 

the Defendant because of the Defendant’s ADA violations as set forth above. 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 non-compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. Plaintiff further requests a remediation plan and the opportunity to participate in 

the crafting of the remediation plan in order to participate in crafting a remediation plan to address 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

24. Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to full and 

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

of their places of public accommodation or commercial facility, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12181 

et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Defendant has also discriminated against Plaintiff in violation 

of 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. and 28 C.F.R. Part 35 et seq for excluding Plaintiff by reason of 

disability from participation in and denying him benefits of the services, programs, or activities of 

a public entity. Furthermore, the Defendant continues 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, 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 10 of 12
11

segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of 

auxiliary aids and services.

25. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, will suffer irreparable harm, and have 

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. 

26. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically 

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

27. 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 the 

Plaintiff or waived by the Defendant.

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

Plaintiff’s Injunctive Relief, including an order to alter the property where Defendant operates its 

business, located within the Commercial Property located in Miami, Florida, the interiors, exterior 

areas, and the common exterior areas of 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 its violations of the ADA.

Case 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 11 of 12
12

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, 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. and Title II the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131; (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 II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dated: October 5, 2022 

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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 1:22-cv-23238-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 12 of 12