UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT,

 Plaintiff,

vs. 

JALISCO, INC. d/b/a JALISCO, 

 Defendants. 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by his undersigned, 

hereby files this Complaint and sues Defendant, JALISCO, INC. d/b/a JALISCO (hereinafter 

“Defendants”), for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

12181, et seq., (hereinafter the “A.D.A”), the ADA’s Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36

(hereinafter the “ADAAG”), and the Florida Building Code. 

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C., §§1331 

and 1343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 12181. et seq., based upon Defendants’ 

violations of Title III of the ADA (see also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202). 

2. The subject property is a restaurant located on or about 700 N Federal Highway, 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 (hereinafter “Subject Premises”). 

3. All events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the State of Florida. Venue is 

proper in this Court as the premises are located in the Southern District. 

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 1 of 9
PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, is currently a resident of Fenwick, 

Michigan in the County of Montcalm, is sui juris, and is a qualified individual under the ADA

and the FACBC. 

5. Plaintiff is a double leg amputee who uses prosthetic devices or a wheelchair to 

ambulate, a Marine Corps veteran with several friends, family, and colleagues in South Florida 

including a son who is a minor league baseball athlete in South Florida who he frequently visits. 

Additionally, Plaintiff enjoys the South Florida weather and the multiple sporting events, 

festivals, and events that occur throughout South Florida. 

6. Despite the physical limitations to which he is subjected as a result of his 

disability, Plaintiff continues to lead a full life, frequently travels, dines out, and is also an 

actively social and independent individual. 

7. Defendant, JALISCO, INC., is a corporation which is authorized to and does 

transact business in the State of Florida and within this judicial district. 

8. Pursuant to the Broward County Property Appraiser’s Office, Defendant,

JALISCO, INC., is the owner and/or operator/manager of the real property located on or 700 N 

Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 (hereinafter the “Subject Premises”). This is the 

building where the Subject Premises is located.

9. According to the Broward County Tax Collector’s Office, the Defendant, 

JALISCO, INC., was obtained its business license on March 15, 1996, and occupies 700 N 

Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 as a restaurant known as “JALISCO”. 

10. The Subject Premises is owned and/or operated by the Defendants and is a public 

accommodation required by law to comply with the ADA and ADAAG.

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 2 of 9
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIM

11. Plaintiff visited the Subject Premises and accessed to the extent possible, or 

attempted to access the Subject Premises and specific areas of the Subject Premises as described 

herein.

12. While visiting the Subject Premises, Plaintiff personally encountered or observed

several barriers to access in violation of the ADA and ADAAG as detailed further herein at 

Paragraph 16. As a result, Plaintiff has been denied access to the Subject Premises and full and 

equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered therein because of his disability and will 

continue to be denied such access as a result of those barriers.

13. Said barriers to access at the Subject Premises endanger the safety of Plaintiff and 

all other individuals with disabilities, deny Plaintiff and others with disabilities equal access to

the Subject Premises as to that of able-bodied persons, and causes social embarrassment due to 

the difficulties encountering such barriers to access—a social embarrassment that would not 

occur if the Subject Premises was in compliance with the ADA and ADAAG.

14. In encountering the barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and suffering the 

resulting discrimination, endangerment, and embarrassment—the Plaintiff sustained a lawful

injury-in-fact pursuant to the ADA.

15. 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 were required to conform to these regulations 

on or before March 15, 2012.1

1

 “Safe Harbor. Elements that have not been altered in existing facilities on or after March 15, 2012, and that comply 

with the corresponding technical and scoping specification for those elements in the 1991 Standards are not required 

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 3 of 9
16. A specific, although not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers, dangerous 

conditions and ADA violations which preclude and/or limit Plaintiff’s ability (because of his 

disability) to access the Facility and/or full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Facility include: 

Accessible Parking

1. The parking space and access aisle have vertical changes in level and abrasive 

cracks making it difficult for the plaintiff to transfer to and from the vehicle, 

in violation of sections 502.4 and 303.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

2. The designated accessible parking space does not provide a 60-inch-wide 

minimum access aisle adjacent to the parking space as required making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to traverse, in violation of section 502.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

Accessible Route

3. The facility does not provide a compliant accessible route within the site from 

the accessible parking spaces to the facility entrances they serve making it 

difficult for plaintiff to traverse, violating sections 206.1 and 206.2.1 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

4. The walkway leading to the entrance door has cross slopes exceeding the 

maximum allowance of 2.1% making it difficult for the plaintiff to traverse, in 

violation of section 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

5. The ground surface within the maneuvering clearance of the entrance door has 

slopes exceeding the maximum allowance of 2.1% in any direction which 

made it difficult for the plaintiff to enter and exit the restaurant, in violation of 

section 404.2.4.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable. 

6. The entrance door does not provide informational or directional signage with 

the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA) making it difficult for the 

plaintiff to identify the accessible entrance, in violation of sections 216.6 and

703.7.2.1 in the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

7. The dining and bar areas do not provide at least 5% of compliant seating at the 

tables as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize the tables, in 

violation of section 226.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

8. The tables in the dining area do not provide compliant knee and toe clearance 

as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of 

to be modified in order to comply with the requirements set forth in the 2010 Standards” 28 CFR §36.304(d)(2)(i), 

however, the violations described herein violate both the 1991 Standards as well as the 2010 Standards.

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 4 of 9
sections 306.2 and 306.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

9. The bar counter exceeds the maximum height requirement of 34 inches above 

the finish floor making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of 

section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

Public Men’s Restroom

10. The restroom entrance door opening does not provide the minimum 32 inches 

of clear width as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to enter and exit 

the restroom, in violation of section 404.2.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

11. The restroom entrance door does not provide the minimum requirement of 18 

inches of latch side maneuvering clearance parallel to the doorway making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to exit the restroom, in violation of sections 206.4 and 

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

12. The lavatory’s cabinet obstructs the required knee and toe clearance making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of sections 606.2, 306.2, and 

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

13. The restroom does not provide the minimum 60 inches of turning space as 

required which made it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize any of the facilities, 

in violation of sections 603.2.1 and 304.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

14. The mirror’s reflecting surface exceeds the maximum height requirement of 

40 inches above the finish floor making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, 

in violation of section 603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

15. The paper towel dispenser exceeds the maximum height requirement of 48 

inches above the finish floor making it difficult for the plaintiff to reach, in 

violation of sections 308.2.2, 308.3.2, and 309.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

16. The toilet paper dispenser is not in the compliant location 7 inches minimum 

and 9 inches maximum measured from the centerline of the dispenser to the 

front rim of the toilet making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation 

of section of 604.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

17. The flush control is not located on the open side of the water closet making it 

difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of section 604.6 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose remediation is readily achievable.

18. The water closet does not provide the minimum requirement of 60 inches of 

perpendicular clearance measured from the side wall and the minimum 

requirement of 56 inches of perpendicular clearance measured from the rear 

wall as required making it difficult for the plaintiff to utilize, in violation of 

section 604.3.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 5 of 9
19. The water closet does not provide both the rear and side wall grab bars as 

required making it difficult for the plaintiff to transfer onto the seat, in 

violation of sections 604.5.1 and 604.5.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

17. The above listing is not to be considered all-inclusive of the barriers, conditions or 

violations encountered by Plaintiff and/or which exist at the Facility. Plaintiff requires an 

inspection of the Facility in order to photograph, measure and determine all of the discriminatory

acts violating the ADA. 

18. The removal of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations 

set forth herein is readily achievable and can be accomplished and carried out without much 

difficulty or expense pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(B)(2)(A)(iv); 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9); and 28 

C.F.R, § 36.304. 

19. The ADA defines “readily achievable as “easily accomplishable and without 

much difficult or expenses.”42 U.S.C. §12181(9) Congress included in the ADA factors to be 

considered in evaluating whether removal of a barrier is “readily achievable.” These factors are 

(1) nature and cost of the action; (2) overall financial resources of the facility or facilities 

involved; (3) number of persons employed at such facility; (4) effect on expenses and resources; 

(5) impact of such action upon the operation of the facility; (6) overall financial resources of the 

covered entity; (7) overall size of the business of a covered entity; (8) the number, type, and 

location of its facilities; (9) type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including 

composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity, and (10)geographic 

separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the 

covered entity. Garthright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., 452 F. 3d 1269, 1272-73 (11th 

Cir. 2006). 

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 6 of 9
20. The obligation to engage in readily achievable barrier removal is a continuing 

one. Over time, barrier removal that initially was not readily achievable may later be required 

because of changed circumstances. DOJ ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual, Section III4.4400 Continuing obligation. 

21. Because, inter alia, this facility was designed, constructed, and received its 

Certificate of Occupancy on March 15, 1996, Plaintiff asserts that said ADA violations are 

intentional in nature and will not be corrected absent Court intervention, thus exacerbating the 

intentional legal harm and injury to which Plaintiff has been and will continue to be subjected in 

the future.

22. Plaintiff will undoubtedly return to the Subject Premises once the barriers to 

access have been remediated—not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the 

Subject Premises, but to confirm and assure himself that the Subject Premises has been brought 

into compliance with the ADA and maintained in compliance with the ADA so that Plaintiff and 

other persons with disabilities will have equal access to the Subject Premises without fear of 

discrimination, endangerment of their safety, or social and public embarrassment.

23. Independent of his personal desire to access this place of public accommodation

as required by law, Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated persons with 

disabilities and an advocate for asserting his own civil rights. However, Plaintiff is deterred

from returning to the Subject Premises as long as the Defendants continue to operate the Subject 

Premises in violation of the ADA and ADAAG.

24. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, and continuing threat of discrimination by the

Defendants as long as the Subject Premises remains in non-compliance with the ADA.

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 7 of 9
25. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff and others with disabilities by 

denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations of the Facility, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C., § 12182, et. seq., 

and by failing to remove architectural barriers as required by 42 U.S.C., § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) 

and will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until 

Defendants are compelled to remove all physical barriers that exist at the Facility, including 

those specifically set forth herein, and make the Facility accessible to and usable by persons with 

disabilities, including Plaintiff.

26. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer direct and indirect injury as a result

of the ADA violations that exist at the Subject Premises and the actions or inactions described 

herein.

27. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm, and 

reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless and until 

Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA 

violations that exist at the Facility, including those set forth herein. 

28. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain undersigned counsel for the filing and

prosecution of this action. The Plaintiff is entitled to have his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs 

and expenses paid by the Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C., §§ 12205 and 12217.

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

injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including an order to alter the subject Facility to make it readily 

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA, and 

closing the subject Facility until the requisite modifications are completed.

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 8 of 9
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue a permanent 

injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing is discriminatory practices, ordering 

Defendants to remove the physical barriers to access and alter the subject Facility to make it 

readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the 

ADA, closing the subject Facility until the barriers are removed and requisite alterations are 

completed, and awarding Plaintiff his reasonable attorney’s fees, expert fees, costs and litigation 

expenses incurred in this action. 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Glenn R. Goldstein 

Glenn R. Goldstein, Esq. (FBN: 55873) 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Glenn R. Goldstein & Associates, PLLC

8101 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 504 

Miami, Florida 33138 

(305) 900-2373 

GGoldstein@G2Legal.net 

s/ Lauren N. Wassenberg 

Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. (FBN: 34083) 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lauren N. Wassenberg & Associates, P.A.

1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 110 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

(561) 571-0646 

WassenbergL@gmail.com

Case 0:22-cv-62326-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 9 of 9