UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

DANIEL LUGO, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 CASE NO. 

 

JUPITER REEF CLUB CONDOMINIUM 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 

 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

sues the Defendant, JUPITER REEF CLUB CONDOMINIUM OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC., 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: 

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 Defendant's violations of Title III of the ADA. 

VENUE

 2. Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) 

because Defendant is a resident of this district. 

Case 9:22-cv-81890-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 1 of 8
2

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. Defendant's lodging 

reservation system fails 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 Defendant is compelled to cure the substantive ADA 

violations contained on its reservations system. Plaintiff intends to visit the 

reservations system for Defendant's place of lodging in the near future, and within 

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

facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations being offered and/or to 

test the reservations system for compliance with 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e). 

 4. Defendant is the owner and/or operator of the Jupiter Reef Club, 

located at 1600 S A1A in Jupiter, Florida ("the Reef"). The website for the Reef, 

which provides detailed information about the Reef (its rental units and common 

Case 9:22-cv-81890-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 2 of 8
3

areas), availability, and pricing, is found at jupiterreefclub.org, enables one to 

identify a unit for a specified week, confirm the price, and then call the Reef to 

confirm the reservation 

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 

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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81890-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 3 of 8
4

 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

(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 Reef is a place of public accommodation that owns and/or leases 

and operates a place of lodging pursuant to the ADA. On the Reef’s website, 

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 

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-81890-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 4 of 8
5

potential patrons may identify a place of lodging and confirm the reservation by 

telephone. The website, followed by telephone confirmation, implemented by 

Defendant comprise its reservations system, which is subject to the requirements of 

28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e) and Defendant is 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 Reef, starting with the website, but was unable to do so due to 

Defendant's 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, 

monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation, 

including online reservation systems for places of lodging, are in compliance with 

the ADA. 

 11. Defendant has 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 Reef through its reservations 

system 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 reservations system. Defendant 

Case 9:22-cv-81890-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 5 of 8
6

contributes to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation by the continued 

operation of the reservations system with discriminatory conditions. 

 12. The reservations system 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 website, he tried to identify an accessible place of lodging at 

the Reef, since he requires an accessible place of lodging due to his inability to 

walk, but it was not possible to do so.. It was possible to identify, and then call to 

confirm, a reservation for a place of lodging that was not accessible. For this 

reason Defendant has 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 

accessible places of lodging. This constitutes a violation of 28 C.F.R.§ 

36.302(e)(1)(i). When Plaintiff visited the website, he searched the site for the 

identification and descriptions of accessible features at the Reef and places of 

lodging offered so that he could assess independently whether the Reef or a 

specific place of lodging at the Reef met his accessibility needs in light of his 

disability but the website 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, Defendant also 

necessarily violated 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1)(iii)-(v) in that since the website does 

not describe any accessible place of lodging and does not, in turn, allow the 

Case 9:22-cv-81890-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 6 of 8
7

reserving of such accessible place of lodging, the reservations system cannot hold 

such unavailable accessible places of lodging until all other units have been rented, 

block such unavailable accessible places of lodging from the system 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 Defendant is required to correct the ADA 

violations on its reservations system and maintain it and accompanying policies in 

a manner 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 Defendant, 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 Defendant to 

implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to accommodate the disabled, by 

Case 9:22-cv-81890-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 7 of 8
8

requiring Defendant to alter and maintain the reservations system 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 Defendant from continuing its discriminatory 

practices, ordering Defendant to implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to 

accommodate the disabled, through requiring Defendant to alter and maintain its 

reservations system in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7 

above, and 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 

2 The injunction, to be meaningful and fulfill its intended purpose, should require Defendant to develop, and strictly 

enforce, a policy requiring regular monitoring of the reservations system. As rates and classes of the places of 

lodging at the Reef 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 Reef, the 

reservations system must continuously be updated to properly reflect and describe Defendant's 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-81890-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 8 of 8