1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Civil Action Number:

JESUS GONZALEZ

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA

Defendant.

/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, 

hereby files this Complaint and sues the City of Miami, Florida (“Defendant”) for 

declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs (including, but not limited to, 

court costs and expert fees) pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. (“ADA”) and 28 C.F.R. Part 35 and alleges 

as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action alleges that the City of Miami, Florida has violated federal laws 

and regulations by failing to ensure that its Parking Lot #31 accommodates individuals with 

disabilities by insuring that access to this parking lot is available to individuals with 

disabilities by removing barriers to access. 

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

2. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title II of the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133 (“ADA”) and 28 C.F.R. Part 

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 1 of 10
2

35. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

3. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) in that all 

events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

4. Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez lives in Miami-Dade County, is sui juris, and

qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. The Plaintiff is disabled 

with neuropathy and nerve damage due to radiation and utilizes a wheelchair for mobility.

Plaintiff’s disability is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12131(2) and in 28 C.F.R. §35.108(a)(1)(i).

5. Plaintiff also has a verified disability handicap parking placard issued by the 

State of Florida Department of Motor Vehicles, and thus is regarded as having such 

impairment according to 42 US Code §12102(3) and is entitled to park in designated 

disabled/accessible parking spaces. 

6. Defendant City of Miami, Florida is a political subdivision of the State of 

Florida, is responsible for providing public parking, parks and recreation to citizens, 

residents, and visitors to the City of Miami and is within the jurisdiction of this court as a 

public entity subject to 42. U.S.C. §12131(1)(b).

FACTS

7. At all times material hereto, Defendant has operated, controlled and/or 

managed the City of Miami Parking Lot #31 through the Miami Parking Authority (which 

is a division of the City of Miami governance) which Defendant has made available to the 

general public. 

8. The City of Miami Parking Lot #31 (also referenced as “Lot #31” or as 

“parking lot”) is located across the street (under the overpass) from 1700 SW 3rd Avenue, 

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 2 of 10
3

Miami, Florida 33129. Parking Lot #31 consists of paved designated parking available for 

the general public including designated accessible parking spaces.

9. Since Lot #31 provides an accommodation to the general public and 

Defendant (a public entity) is the maintainer, controller and/or operator of that parking lot, 

Lot #31 is likewise subject to Title II of the ADA.

10. On July 25, 2022 Plaintiff was intent on patronizing Perricone’s restaurant 

located at 1700 SW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33129, which was across the street from

Lot #31. Plaintiff parked his car in Lot #31 with the purpose of then perambulating across 

the street to the restaurant. 

11. As a disabled individual who uses a wheelchair, Plaintiff encountered 

barriers to access within Lot #31.

12. Plaintiff has parked within Lot #31 in the past and continues to desire to park 

at Lot #31 in the future but Plaintiff continues to be injured in that he is concerned that he 

will again be discriminated against due to the barriers to access within Lot #31 which are in 

violation of state statutes and 28 C.F.R. §35.133(a) which states “A public entity shall 

maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are 

required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.”

13. By Defendant’s behavior and actions in failing to provide accessible parking

which meets the requirements of accessibility, Defendant has been unreasonable and 

discriminatory.

14. The Defendant is a public entity and its departments (including the Miami 

Parking Authority) is operated by individuals whom are well aware of the necessity of 

compliance with the requirements for the need to provide equal access to individuals with 

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 3 of 10
4

disabilities in accordance with the ADA. Defendant has failed to follow 28 C.F.R. §35.136 

and the guidelines and requirements for the provision of equal access to individuals with 

disabilities in accordance with the ADA at its Lot #31 parking lot.

15. Defendant’s failure to reasonably accommodate mobility impaired and 

disabled patrons by insuring that Parking Lot #31 is fully accessible for mobility impaired 

patrons is/was willful, malicious, and oppressive and in disregard for the Civil Rights of the 

Plaintiff and in violation of 28 C.F.R. §35.130(a).

16. Defendant’s discrimination has resulted in the Plaintiff being denied full and 

equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations at Lot #31.

17. Defendant is subject to Title II of the ADA, because it maintains, controls, 

and/or operates Lot #31 which is open to the general public.

18. As a public entity, Defendant knew or should have known of the 

prohibitions to access caused by the failure of the Defendant to maintain a fully accessible 

parking lot.

19. As a public entity, Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff when 

the Plaintiff (a person with a disability) encountered barriers to access in his use of City of 

Miami provided parking (in this instance, at Lot #31); 41 U.S.C. §12132.

20. As a result of discrimination by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered loss of 

dignity, mental anguish and other tangible injuries and has suffered an injury-in-fact.

21. Any and all requisite notice has been provided.

22. For all of the foregoing, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

23. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the civil rights law office of J. Courtney 

Cunningham, PLLC and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of 

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 4 of 10
5

this cause, including costs and expenses incurred. Plaintiff is entitled to recover those 

attorney’s fees, costs and expenses from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205.

COUNT I – PUBLIC LOT #31 ACCESS - VIOLATIONS OF TITLE II OF THE ADA 

24. 42 U.S.C. §12131(1)(b) states that a public entity includes any department of 

a state or local government. Defendant is subject to the purview of Title II of the ADA 

because Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Parking Lot #31 is also 

subject to the purview of Title II of the ADA as it is a parking lot maintained, controlled and 

operated by the Miami Parking Authority (a division of Defendant’s city operations). 

25. 28 C.F.R. §35.130 states that a public entity cannot deny a qualified 

individual with a disability the benefits of services, programs or activities 28 C.F.R. 

§35.130(b)(1)(i) states that a public entity may not deny an individual the opportunity to 

participate in or benefit from aid, benefit, or service on the basis of disability.

26. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant has denied him the opportunity to utilize 

Lot #31 in the same manner as non-disabled individuals due to barriers to access with the 

parking lot.

27. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(1)(ii) states that a public entity may not provide 

unequal aid, benefit, or service to a disabled individual. In the instant case, Defendant has 

maintained Lot #31 in such a manner that full access has been denied Plaintiff. Defendant’s 

policy decisions have resulted in denial of independent access to the parking lot (Lot #31) as 

the general public has been provided. 

28. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(1)(vii) states that a public entity may not limit a 

qualified individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or 

opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service. In the instant case,

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 5 of 10
6

Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff full access to Lot #31 at the time that members of the 

general public are permitted that same access. In doing Defendant has denied Plaintiff the 

ability to fully enjoy Lot #31 in the equal manner as afforded the general public.

29. Public entities are required to provide full and equal enjoyment of their 

services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to people with 

disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq.; 28 C.F.R. Part 35. Specifically, the public entity 

must: 

a) Ensure that no individual is discriminated against on the basis of disability 

or excluded from participation or denied the benefits of services, programs, or 

activities. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(a),

b) Ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, 

segregated, or otherwise treated differently than other individuals unless the 

public entity can demonstrate that taking those steps to modify policies, practices, 

or procedures would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or 

activity. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7).

c) Ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, 

segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals unless the public 

entity can demonstrate that legitimate safety requirements are necessary for safe 

operation. Any safety requirements must be based on actual risks and not on mere 

speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities; 28 

C.F.R. §35.130(h). 

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 6 of 10
7

30. By Defendant’s failure to maintain Lot #31 in such a manner as to allow 

Plaintiff equal access as afforded the general public, Defendant has violated Title II of the 

ADA in numerous ways, including discriminatory action which occurred when Defendant:

a) Failed to maintain policies and procedures to ensure compliance with 

Title II of the ADA and of 28 C.F.R. §35.130; specifically, policies that provide 

equal access to Lot #31 by individuals with disabilities,

b) Excluded the Plaintiff from equal access to Lot #31 during such time 

that the general public had access to these amenities, in violation of 28 C.F.R. 

§35.149.

c) Denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, 

accommodations of the public entity’s Lot #31 in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12132. 

31. Defendant is in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq., the ADA and 28 

C.F.R. Part 35 et seq., and is discriminating against the Plaintiff as a result of inter alia, the 

following specific violations: 

i. Plaintiff had difficulty exiting his vehicle, as designated accessible parking space 

access aisles are located on an excessive slope (which is over 2.1%). This is in 

violation of Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG which states that parking spaces shall be 

level with surface slopes not exceeding 1:50 (2%) in all directions. This is also a 

violation of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design which 

states that parking spaces and access aisles serving them shall comply with Section 

302 (floor and ground surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant) and that 

access aisles shall be at the same level as the parking spaces they serve. Defendant’s 

failure to provide accessible means of egress from the parking space to the entrance 

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 7 of 10
8

of Lot #31 due to the slope of the accessible parking space access isles is a violation 

of 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Section 207.1 (general compliance 

with building codes) and Section 502.4.

ii. Plaintiff had difficulty exiting his vehicle, as the designated accessible parking

spaces themselves are located on an excessive slope. This is a violation of Section 

4.6.3 of the ADAAG and Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible 

Design. Section 4.6.3 states that parking spaces shall be level with surface slopes not 

exceeding 1:50 (2%) in all directions.

32. As a public entity, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §35.105, Defendant is required to 

evaluate its services, policies, and practices within its public areas (such as Parking Lot #31) 

and if they do not meet the requirements for accessibility as per Section 25, the public entity 

shall proceed to make the necessary modifications

33. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12133, this Court is vested with the authority to grant 

the Plaintiff injunctive relief, including an order to alter the facilities at Lot #31 to make the 

designated accessible parking spaces within Lot #31 accessible to (and useable by) 

individuals with disabilities (including those individuals with disabilities who are mobility 

impaired) as required by the ADA.

34. The Court is vested with the authority to require Defendant (a public entity) 

to assure that Lot #31 accommodates mobility impaired individuals with disabilities who 

require access to the parking facilities.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez respectfully prays that this Court grant the 

following relief against Defendant City of Miami, Florida including entering a declaratory 

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 8 of 10
9

judgment stating that Defendant’s practices, policies, and procedures have subjected 

Plaintiff to discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA and further:

a) The Court enter an order for permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12133 and 29 CFR §794(a) which requires Defendant take all steps necessary to 

alter the facilities at the City of Miami Parking Lot #31 such that the parking lot 

is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full extent 

required by the Title II of the ADA;

b) The Court enter an Order requiring Defendant to evaluate and neutralize 

their policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities and to 

promulgate and comply with policies and procedures to ensure that Defendant

and its staff and representatives within the Miami Parking Authority do not 

discriminate against individuals who are disabled and who are mobility impaired

with respect to Lot #31;

c) The Court award taxable costs of suit;

d) The Court award reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205 and 29 CFR §794(a); and

e) The Court awards such other relief as it deems necessary, just and 

proper.

Dated September 26, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 9 of 10
10

Telephone: 305-351-2014

Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-23118-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 10 of 10