UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

DANIEL LUGO, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 CASE NO. 

 

GIMME SHELTER-14(D), LLC and 

GIMME SHELTER-14(T), LLC, 

 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

sues the Defendants, GIMME SHELTER-14(D), LLC and GIMME SHELTER14(T), 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 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 business venture in 

Case 9:22-cv-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 1 of 9
2

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 in Boca Raton, Florida) 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 always 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’ place of lodging in the near future, 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 2 of 9
3

services, 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 are the owners and/or operators of a distributed hotel, Coco 

Sands Cottages located at 1473 South Atlantic Avenue and 1381 South Orlando 

Avenue in Cocoa Beach, Florida (“the Cottages”) and Coco Sands Villas located at 

199 Tyler Avenue in Cape Canaveral, Florida (“the Villas”). Specifically, GIMME 

SHELTER-14(D), LLC is the owner and operator of Coco Sands Cottages and 

GIMME SHELTER-14(T), LLC is the owner and operator of Coco Sands Villas. 

The online reservation system for the Cottages is found at cocosands.com/cocoabeach/ and the online reservation system for the Villas is found at 

cocosands.com/cape-canaveral/ and are collectively referred to herein as 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-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 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-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 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 Cottages and Villas are places of public accommodation that own 

and/or lease and operate places of lodging pursuant to the ADA. On the Cottages’ 

and Villas’ 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 November, 2022 Plaintiff attempted to 

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

lodging at the Cottages and at the Villas 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, 

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-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

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 Cottages and at the Villas 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. 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 

Cottages and at the Villas, 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 6 of 9
7

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 sites for the 

identification and descriptions of accessible features at the Cottages and at the 

Villas and places of lodging offered through the ORS so that he could assess 

independently whether the Cottages and the Villas or a specific place of lodging at 

the Cottages and at the Villas 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 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 Websites 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 systems 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 them and accompanying policies in a manner 

Case 9:22-cv-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

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 

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 

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 

Cottages and at the Villas 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 the Cottages 

and at the Villas, 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-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 8 of 9
9

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 

Case 9:22-cv-81878-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 9 of 9