UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

DOUG LONGHINI, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA LLC, 

ALIGNED BAYSHORE RAW BAR LLC 

D/B/A MONTYS RAW BAR and COCONUT

GROVE F&B LLC D/B/A MONTYS AT 

COCONUT GROVE, 

Defendants.

______________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA 

LLC, ALIGNED BAYSHORE RAW BAR LLC D/B/A MONTYS RAW BAR and COCONUT 

GROVE F&B LLC D/B/A MONTYS AT COCONUT GROVE, (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 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 1 of 14
2 

U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. 

4. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a 

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

5. At all times material, Defendant, ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA LLC, owned

and operated a commercial restaurant located at 2550 Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33133 

(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, ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA 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 Plantation, Florida. 

7. At all times material, Defendant, ALIGNED BAYSHORE RAW BAR LLC, 

owned and operated a commercial restaurant located at 2550 Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 

33133 (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business 

in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant, ALIGNED 

BAYSHORE RAW BAR LLC holds itself out to the public as “Montys Raw Bar.” 

8. At all times material, Defendant, ALIGNED BAYSHORE RAW BAR 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 Plantation, Florida. 

9. At all times material, Defendant, COCONUT GROVE F&B LLC, owned and 

operated a commercial restaurant located at 2550 Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33133 

(hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that 

place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant, COCONUT 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 2 of 14
3 

GROVE F&B LLC, holds itself out to the public as “Montys at Coconut Grove.” 

10. At all times material, Defendant, COCONUT GROVE F&B LLC, was and is a 

Foreign Limited Liability Company, incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with 

its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. 

11. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant’s 

Commercial Property is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants regularly conduct 

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

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

of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make its facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities.

13. Congress provided commercial business 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’ business and 

properties. 

14. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in 28 CFR 36.201 and 

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. 

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

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 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 3 of 14
4

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.

16. Defendant, ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA LLC, owns, operates and/or 

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

therein, that are the subject of this Action.

17. Defendants, ALIGNED BAYSHORE RAW BAR LLC and COCONUT GROVE 

F&B LLC, own, operate and/or oversea their respective business, located within the Defendant’s 

Commercial Property, located in Miami, Florida, that is the subject of this Action.

18. Mr. Longhini is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming aware of his 

rights, and their repeated infringement, he has dedicated much of 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.

19. 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. Longhini is accordingly of the 

belief that the only way to affect change is through the mechanisms provided under the ADA.

20. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and business located within 

the Commercial Property, to include a visit to the Commercial Property and business located 

within the Commercial Property on or about November 17, 2022 and encountered multiple 

violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property 

and business located therein. He often visits the Commercial Property and business located within 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 4 of 14
5

because it is approximately thirteen (13) miles from his residence, and is near other business and 

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

business located within the Commercial Property within two (2) months of the filing of this 

Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered at the place of public 

accommodation and check if it has been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.

21. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business located within the 

Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural 

barriers at the Commercial Property, and business located within the Commercial Property and 

wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.

22. 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, and the business located within the Commercial 

Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff’s ability to visit the Commercial Property, and 

business located within 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.

23. Defendants, ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA LLC, ALIGNED BAYSHORE 

RAW BAR LLC and COCONUT GROVE F&B LLC, own and/or operate a place of public 

accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 

36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendants, ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA LLC, ALIGNED 

BAYSHORE RAW BAR and COCONUT GROVE F&B LLC, are responsible for complying with 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 5 of 14
6

the obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation that Defendants, ALIGNED 

BAYSHORE MARINA LLC, ALIGNED BAYSHORE RAW BAR and COCONUT GROVE 

F&B LLC, own and operate the Commercial Property located at 2250 Bayshore Drive Miami, 

Florida 33133.

24. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, 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 and the business located within the Commercial Property, 

including but not necessarily limited to the allegations in Counts I through II of this Complaint. 

Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination 

at the Commercial Property, and business located within the Commercial Property, in violation of 

the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial Property and business located therein, not only 

to avail himself of the goods and services available at the Commercial Property, and business

located within the Commercial Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial Property and 

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 

business located within the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination.

25. Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, 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 and business located within the Commercial Property, but not 

necessarily limited to the allegations in Counts I through II of this Complaint. Plaintiff has 

reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the 

Commercial Property, and business within the Commercial Property, in violation of the ADA. 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 6 of 14
7 

Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial Property and business within the Commercial Property, 

not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the Commercial Property and 

business located within the Commercial Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial 

Property, and 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 business located within the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination.

26. 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 business located within the Commercial 

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

COUNT I – ADA VIOLATIONS 

AS TO ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA LLC 

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

26 above as though fully set forth herein. 

28. Defendant, ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA 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. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. The plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it was not continuous and accessible. 

Violation: There are inaccessible routes between sections of the facility. These are violations 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 7 of 14
8 

of the requirements in Sections 4.3.2(2), 4.3, and 4.5 of the ADAAG and Sections 206.2.2, 

303, 402 and 403, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

ii. 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. 

iii. 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. 

iv. The plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as there are cross slopes in excess of 

2%. Violation: The path of travel contains excessive cross slopes in violation of Section 4.3.7 

of the ADAAG and Section 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable. 

COUNT II – ADA VIOLATIONS 

AS TO ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA LLC, ALIGNED BAYSHORE RAW BAR

and COCONUT GROVE F&B LLC

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

through 26 above as though fully set forth herein. 

30. Defendants, ALIGNED BAYSHORE MARINA LLC, ALIGNED 

BAYSHORE RAW BAR and COCONUT GROVE F&B LLC, 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 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 8 of 14
9 

following: 

A. Access to Goods and Services

i. The plaintiff could not utilize the bar counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: There are 

bar counters that are not at the prescribed height, violating Section 4.32.4 and 5.2 of the 

ADAAG and Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable. 

B. 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. 

ii. The plaintiff could not use the lavatories outside the accessible toilet compartment without 

assistance, as they are mounted too high and the pipes are not fully wrapped. Violation: There 

are lavatories outside accessible toilet compartments in public restrooms with the counter 

surfaces mounted too high and pipes that are not properly insulated, violating the requirements 

in Sections 4.19.2, 4.19.4, and Figure 31 of the ADAAG and Sections 213.3.4. 606.3, & 606.5 

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

iii. The plaintiff could not use the accessible toilet compartment without assistance, as one of the 

required size is not provided: Violation: The accessible 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. 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 9 of 14
10

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 accessible toilet compartment without assistance, as the required 

clear floor space was not provided due to the door swinging into the area. Violation: Compliant 

clear floor space is not provided in the accessible toilet compartment, violating Sections 4.2.3, 

4.22.2, and 4.22.3 of the ADAAG and Sections 304.4 and 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vi. 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.

vii. The plaintiff could not flush the toilet without assistance, as the flush valve is not mounted on 

the wide area. Violation: The flush valve is not mounted on the compliant side in violation of 

Section 4.16.5 of the ADAAG and Section 604.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution 

is readily achievable.

viii. The plaintiff could not use the toilet without assistance as the seat is not mounted at the required 

height. Violation: The water closet seats are mounted at a non-compliant height from the floor 

in violation of Section 4.16.3 of the ADAAG and Section 604.4 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, 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 10 of 14
11 

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

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

31. The discriminatory violations described in Counts I through III are not an exclusive list 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, DOUG LONGHINI, from further ingress, use, and equal 

enjoyment of the Commercial Business and business located within the Commercial Property; 

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.

32. 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, 

business 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 11 of 14
12 

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.

33. 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 

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. 

34. 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. 

35. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 12 of 14
13 

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. 

36. 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 a Defendant has 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 Defendant. 

37. 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 Defendants operate their 

business, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 7700 N Kendall Drive, 

Miami, Florida 33156, the exterior areas, and the common exterior areas of the Commercial

Property and business 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, DOUG LONGHINI, 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 13 of 14
14 

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 14, 2022. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 

Coral Gables, Fl 33134 

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-24039-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 14 of 14