1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.:

ERIC ROGERS

Plaintiff,

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

319 B RENAISSANCE II ASSET, LLC.

Defendant.

/

 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ERIC ROGERS (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby 

files this Complaint and sues 319 B RENAISSANCE II ASSET, LLC. (referred to as 

“Defendant”) as a for profit business entity, for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, 

expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq., and the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and alleges as 

follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under Title 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq., based on 

Defendant’s violations of Title III of the ADA. See also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, as well as the 2010 

ADA Standards.

2. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(B) and Internal 

Operating Procedures for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 1 of 16
2

that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, ERIC ROGERS is sui juris and is a resident of the State of Florida.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and/or

lessor of the Real Property, which is subject to this suit, and is located at 319 Belvedere Rd., 

West Palm Beach, FL 33407 (“Premises”), and is the owner of the improvements where 

Premises is located.

5. Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the 

state of Florida.

6. Plaintiff is an individual with numerous disabilities and is a bilateral amputee 

which results in absolutely no use of the legs and requires him to use and remain in a wheelchair. 

The above listed disability and symptoms cause sudden onsets of severe pain and substantially 

limit Plaintiff’s major life activities. At the time of Plaintiff’s visit to the Premises in October of

2022 (and prior to instituting this action), Plaintiff suffered from a “qualified disability” under 

the ADA, and required the use of fully accessible parking spaces and fully accessible paths of 

travel throughout the facility. Plaintiff personally visited the Premises, but was denied full and

equal access and full and equal enjoyment of the facilities and amenities within the Premises, 

even though he would be classified as a “bona fide patron”.

7. Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, will absolutely return to the Premises and 

avail himself of the services offered when Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 2 of 16
3

policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities.

8. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is 

aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, 

and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination.

9. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a 

result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the 

requirements of the ADA.

10. Plaintiff would like to be able to be a patron of the Premises in the future and be 

able to enjoy the goods and services that are available to the able-bodied public, but is currently 

precluded from doing so as a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct as described herein. 

Plaintiff will continue to be precluded from using the Premises until corrective measures are 

taken at the Premises to eliminate the discrimination against persons with physical disabilities.

11. Completely independent of the personal desire to have access to this place of 

public accommodation free of illegal barriers to access, Plaintiff also acts as a “tester” for the 

purpose of discovering, encountering and engaging discrimination against the disabled in public 

accommodations. When acting as a “tester”, Plaintiff employs a routine practice. Plaintiff

personally visits the public accommodation; engages all of the barriers to access, or at least of 

those that Plaintiff is able to access; tests all of those barriers to access to determine whether and 

the extent to which they are illegal barriers to access; proceeds with legal action to enjoin

such discrimination; and subsequently returns to Premises to verify its compliance or noncompliance with the ADA and to otherwise use the public accommodation as members of the 

able-bodied community are able to do. Independent of other subsequent visits, Plaintiff also 

intends to visit the Premises regularly to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 3 of 16
4

and its maintenance of the accessible features of Premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in 

Plaintiff’s individual capacity and as a “tester”, visited Premises, encountered barriers to access 

at Premises, and engaged and tested those barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will 

continue to suffer such harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access and the ADA 

violations set forth herein. It is Plaintiff’s belief that said violations will not be corrected without 

Court intervention, and thus Plaintiff will suffer legal harm and injury in the near future.

12. Plaintiff, in his capacity as a tester, will absolutely return to the Premises when 

Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the policies and practices to accommodate 

individuals who have physical disabilities to confirm said modifications have been completed 

in accordance with the requirements of the ADA.

VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

13. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 12 

above as if fully stated herein.

14. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. Commercial enterprises were provided one and a half (1.5) 

years from enactment of the statute to implement its requirements. The effective date of Title III 

of the ADA was January 26, 1992, or January 26, 1993 if Defendant(s) have ten (10) or fewer 

employees and gross receipts of $500,000.00 or less. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182; 28 C.F.R. § 

36.508(a).

15. Congress found, among other things, that:

a. some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, 

and this number shall increase as the population continues to grow older;

b. historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 4 of 16
5

disabilities and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination 

against disabled individuals continue to be a pervasive social problem, requiring 

serious attention;

c. discrimination against disabled individuals persists in such critical areas as 

employment, housing, public accommodations, transportation, communication, 

recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting and access to public 

services and public facilities;

d. individuals with disabilities continually suffer forms of discrimination, including 

outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, 

transportation, and communication barriers, failure to make modifications to 

existing facilities and practices. Exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, 

segregation, and regulation to lesser services, programs, benefits, or other 

opportunities; and,

e. the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice 

denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and 

to pursue those opportunities for which our country is justifiably famous, and 

accosts the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting 

from dependency and non-productivity.

Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA was to:

f. provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

g. provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 5 of 16
6

against individuals with disabilities; and

h. invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the 

fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major 

areas of discrimination faced on a daily basis by people with disabilities.

U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

17. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(7), 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 and the 2010 ADA

Standards, Defendant’s Premises is a place of public accommodation covered by the ADA by the 

fact it provides services to the general public and must be in compliance therewith.

18. Defendant has discriminated and continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and 

others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations located at the Premises, as 

prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 and 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq., and by failing to remove 

architectural barriers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

19. Plaintiff has visited Premises, and has been denied full and safe equal access to 

the facilities and therefore suffered an injury in fact.

20. Plaintiff would like to return and enjoy the goods and/or services at Premises on 

a spontaneous, full and equal basis. However, Plaintiff is precluded from doing so by the 

Defendant’s failure and refusal to provide disabled persons with full and equal access to its

facilities. Therefore, Plaintiff continues to suffer from discrimination and injury due to the architectural 

barriers that are in violation of the ADA.

21. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), on July 26, 1991, the 

Department of Justice, Officer of the Attorney General promulgated Federal Regulations to 

implement the requirements of the ADA. See 28 C.F.R. § 36 and its successor the 2010 ADA 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 6 of 16
7

Standards ADA Accessibility guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. § 36, 

under which said Department may obtain civil penalties of up to $55,000.00 for the first violation 

and $110,000.00 for and subsequent violation.

22. Based on a preliminary inspection of the Premises, Defendants are in violation of

42 USC § 12182 et. seq. and the 2010 American Disabilities Act Standards et. seq., and is 

discriminating against Plaintiff as a result of but not limited to, inter alia, the following specific

violations:

i. On the southwest side of the Property, there is a vertical of approximately 1⁄2 

inch along the accessible route leading from the public sidewalk to the 

accessible entrances, in violation of Section 303.2 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for 

Plaintiff to access public features of the Property as vertical rise in excess of 1⁄4 

inch may cause Plaintiff’s wheelchair to snag on the vertical rise and tip over.

ii. In front of the door to Unit 1, near where the sign says “Please Use The Other 

Door,” due to the placement of potted plants in the accessible route, there are 

publicly accessible areas of the Property having accessible routes with clear 

widths below the minimum 36 (thirty-six) inch requirement as required by 

section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the rest of the units of the Property as 

Plaintiff’s wheelchair would not be able to get past this barrier. 

iii. In front of Kitchen, there is a seating area that is sunken that is accessed via an 

approximate 4 inch step down with no ramp providing access. As a result, there 

are changes in level in the Property exceeding 1⁄2 (one-half) inch that are not 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 7 of 16
8

accessible ramped in violation of section 303.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to 

access the units of the Property.

iv. Due to the barrier to access identified in (iii) exterior seating area of the Kitchen 

restaurant is not accessible in violation of sections 206.2.4 and 206.2.5 of the 

2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult and 

dangerous for Plaintiff to enjoy the unique experience of exterior seating if he 

were to patronize The Kitchen.

v. In front of Unit 9, the access aisle to the two accessible parking spaces is not 

level due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violation 

of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while 

parked at the Property as the lift from the van may rest upon the ramp and create 

an unlevel surface. 

vi. In front of Unit 9, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the 

access aisle of the accessible parking spaces in violation of section 406.5 of the 

2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and 

difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property 

as the lift from the van may rest upon the ramp and create an unlevel surface.

vii. In front of Unit 9, the Property has an accessible ramp that lacks finished edges 

or edge protection and/or is otherwise in violation of section 405.9 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would exposes Plaintiff to increased 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 8 of 16
9

risk of injury for if the wheelchair should fall of the side edge of the ramp, the 

lack of edge protection would likely cause Plaintiff to tip and incur injury.

viii. In front of Unit 9, there are two accessible parking spaces that are missing 

identification signs in violation of section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an accessible 

parking space.

ix. Across the vehicular way from Unit 10, the accessible parking space does not 

have a marked access aisle in violation of section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access makes it nearly impossible for an individual in 

a wheelchair to enter and exit their vehicle at this accessible parking space due 

to the close presence of parked vehicles on either side of the accessible parking 

space not providing enough room for the wheelchair, this eliminates the 

accessible route from this accessible parking space.

x. Across the vehicular way from Unit 10, due to the barrier to access identified 

in (ix) above, the Property lacks an accessible route from this accessible parking 

space to the accessible entrance of the Property in violation of section 208.3.1 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult 

for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

xi. On the eastern side of the building, the accessible parking space does not have 

a marked access aisle in violation of section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access makes it nearly impossible for an individual in 

a wheelchair to enter and exit their vehicle at this accessible parking space due 

to the close presence of parked vehicles on either side of the accessible parking 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 9 of 16
10

space not providing enough room for the wheelchair, this eliminates the 

accessible route from this accessible parking space.

xii. On the eastern side of the building, the accessible parking space does not have 

a marked access aisle. As a result, the Property lacks an accessible route from 

this accessible parking space to the accessible entrance of the Property in 

violation of section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

xiii. On the eastern side of the building, the accessible parking space is missing an 

identification sign in violation of section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an accessible 

parking space.

xiv. On the eastern side of the building, there is an accessible ramp leading from the 

sidewalk to the accessible entrance. This accessible ramp lacks finished edges 

or edge protection and/or is otherwise in violation of section 405.9 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would exposes Plaintiff to increased 

risk of injury for if the wheelchair should fall of the side edge of the ramp, the 

lack of edge protection would likely cause Plaintiff to tip and incur injury.

xv. On the eastern side of the building, due to the placement of tables in the 

accessible route, there are publicly accessible areas of the Property having 

accessible routes with clear widths below the minimum 36 (thirty-six) inch 

requirement as required by section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the rest of the 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 10 of 16
11

units of the Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair would not be able to get past this 

barrier. 

xvi. In front of Joe Bistro, due to the placement of tables and a trash can in the 

accessible route, there are publically accessible areas of the Property having 

accessible routes with clear widths below the minimum 36 (thirty-six) inch 

requirement as required by section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the rest of the 

units of the Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair would not be able to get past this 

barrier. 

xvii. As a result of the barriers to access referenced in (ii), (xv) and (xvi), the Property 

lacks an accessible route connecting accessible facilities, accessible elements 

and/or accessible spaces of the Property in violation of section 206.2.2 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

Plaintiff to access public features of the Property.

xviii. Inside Joe Bistro, the to-go/take-out counter lacking any portion of the counter 

that has a maximum height of 36 (thirty-six) inches from the finished floor in 

violation of section 904.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, all portions of the togo/take-out counter exceed 36 (thirty-six) inches in height from the finished 

floor. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to properly 

transact business at the Property.

xix. Inside Joe Bistro, due to the policy of the operator/tenant of storing items along 

the accessible route to the restroom, the interior has walking surfaces leading to 

the restroom lacking a 36 (thirty-six) inch clear width in violation of section 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 11 of 16
12

403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it 

difficult for Plaintiff to properly utilize public features in the Property.

xx. As a result of the barrier to access identified in (xix) above, there is not an 

accessible route connecting the accessible entrance to Jo Bistro to the restroom 

in violation of section 206.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards.

xxi. Defendant fails to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that all 

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

JOE BISTRO RESTROOMS

i. The restroom lacks signage in compliance with sections 216.8 and 703 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to locate accessible restroom facilities.

ii. The door to the restroom lacks a clear minimum maneuvering clearance, due to 

the proximity of the door hardware within 18 inches to the adjacent wall, in 

violation of Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

access would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to 

safely exit the restroom due to the fact individuals in wheelchairs have their feet 

sticking out in front of them and when there is inadequate clearance near the 

door (less than 18 inches), their protruding feet block their ability to reach the 

door hardware to open the door.

iii. The door locking hardware providing access to the restrooms requires tight 

grasping and twisting of the wrist in violation of Section 404.2.7 of the 2010 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 12 of 16
13

ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff 

and/or any disabled individual to utilize the restroom facilities.

iv. There is an unbeveled vertical rise exceeding 1⁄2 (one-half) inch at the threshold 

to the door leading to the restrooms in violation of section 404.2.5 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff 

to safely utilize the restroom facilities. 

v. Restrooms have a pedestal sink with inadequate knee and toe clearance in 

violation of section 306 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to utilize the 

restroom sink as Plaintiff is seated in a wheelchair and, when seated, Plaintiff’s 

feet and legs protrude out in front. In order to properly utilize a sink, Plaintiff’s 

legs must be able to be underneath the surface of the sink, but due to the 

improper configuration of the sink, there is no room underneath for Plaintiff’s 

legs and feet.

vi. The height of the bottom edge of the reflective surface of the mirror in the 

bathroom is above the 40 inch maximum height permitted by Section 603.3 of 

the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

the Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to properly utilize the mirror in the 

restroom since Plaintiff is sitting in a wheelchair and is lower than a person 

standing up.

vii. The restrooms have grab bars adjacent to the commode which are not in 

compliance with section 604.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards as the rear bar is 

missing. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 13 of 16
14

disabled individual to safely transfer from the wheelchair to the toilet and back 

to the wheelchair.

viii. Due to a policy of keeping the trash receptacle under the sink, the restrooms 

have a sink with inadequate knee and toe clearance in violation of section 306 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult 

for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to utilize the restroom sink as 

Plaintiff is seated in a wheelchair and, when seated, Plaintiff’s feet and legs 

protrude out in front. In order to properly utilize a sink, Plaintiff’s legs must be 

able to be underneath the surface of the sink, but due to the improper 

configuration of the sink, there is no room underneath for Plaintiff’s legs and 

feet.

ix. The door to the restrooms has a maximum clear width below 32 (thirty-two) 

inches in violation of section 404.2.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled 

individual to safely utilize the restroom facilities as wheelchair typically has a 

clear width of between 30 and 32 inches and the wheelchair will not be able to 

fit through the doorway to access the restroom. In the case that the wheelchair 

may barely fit through, the tight doorway would likely injure Plaintiff’s hands 

as they could get caught between the wheel and the doorway.

23. To the best of Plaintiff’s belief and knowledge, Defendant has failed to eliminate 

the specific violations set forth in paragraph 22 herein.

24. Although Defendant is charged with having knowledge of the violations, 

Defendant may not have actual knowledge of said violations until this Complaint makes 

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 14 of 16
15

Defendant aware of same.

25. To date, the readily achievable barriers and other violations of the ADA still exist 

and have not been remedied or altered in such a way as to effectuate compliance with the 

provisions of the ADA.

26. As the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises, Defendants are required 

to comply with the ADA. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, existed and were 

occupied prior to January 26, 1992, the owner, lessor, lessee or operator has been under a 

continuing obligation to remove architectural barriers at the Premises where removal was readily 

achievable, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.402.

27. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, were constructed for occupancy 

after January 26, 1993 the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises was under an 

obligation to design and construct such Premises such that it is readily accessible to and usable 

by individuals with disabilities, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.401.

28. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of

this action. Plaintiff is entitled to have his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid 

by Defendant, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

29. All of the above violations are readily achievable to modify in order to bring 

Premises or the Facility/Property into compliance with the ADA.

30. In instance(s) where the 2010 ADAAG standard does not apply, the 1991 

ADAAG standard applies and all of the violations listed in paragraph 22 herein can be applied 

to the 1991 ADAAG standards.

31. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is vested with the authority to grant 

Plaintiff’s injunctive relief, including an order to alter the subject facility to make them readily

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 15 of 16
16

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.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and requests the 

following injunctive and declaratory relief:

1. That this Court declares that Premises owned, operated and/or controlled by 

Defendants are in violation of the ADA;

2. That this Court enter an Order requiring Defendants to alter their facilities to 

make them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full 

extent required by Title III of the ADA;

3. That this Court enter an Order directing the Defendants to evaluate and neutralize 

their policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such 

reasonable time so as to allow the Defendants to undertake and complete 

corrective procedures to Premises;

4. That this Court award reasonable attorney’s fees, all costs (including, but not 

limited to the court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of suit to the 

Plaintiff; and,

5. That this Court award such other and further relief as it may deem necessary, just 

and proper.

Dated: November 14, 2022

/ s / A l b e r t o R . L e al . 

Alberto R. Leal, Esq., P.A.

Florida Bar No.: 1002345

8927 Hypoluxo Rd. #157

Lake Worth, FL 33467

Phone: 954-637-1868

E-Mail: albertolealesq@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81761-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 16 of 16