UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 

MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, 

Plaintiff,

v.

AVENTURA BEACH CLUB CONDO 

ASSOCIATION, INC. D/B/A RAMADA 

PLAZA BY WYNDHAM MARCO POLO 

BEACH RESORT, 

Defendant.

____________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, MARIA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues AVENTURA BEACH CLUB 

CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC. D/B/A RAMADA PLAZA BY WYNDHAM MARCO POLO 

BEACH RESORT (hereinafter “Defendant”), 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. § 12131, et seq., (the "Americans with 

Disabilities Act" or “ADA”) and 28 C.F.R. Part 35, incorporating by reference the remedies, 

procedures and rights under Sections 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, 

794(a) ("Section 504”), incorporating the remedies, rights and procedures set forth in § 717 of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, including the application of §§ 706(f) through 706(k), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)-(k).

2. The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12131, et seq. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 1 of 13
2 

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 

U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. 

4. Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, is an individual over eighteen years of age, 

who splits her time between California, and Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.

5. At all times material, Defendant, AVENTURA BEACH CLUB CONDO 

ASSOCIATION, INC., owned and operated a commercial hotel located at 19201 Collins Avenue 

Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160 (hereinafter the “Commercial Property”). 

6. At all times material, Defendant, AVENTURA BEACH CLUB CONDO 

ASSOCIATION, INC., was and is a Florida Corporation, organized under the laws of the state of 

Florida, with its principal place of business in Sunny Isles, Florida. Defendant, AVENTURA 

BEACH CLUB CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC., holds itself out to the public as “RAMADA 

PLAZA BY WYNDHAM MARCO POLO BEACH RESORT.” 

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

Commercial Property is located in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, Defendant regularly conduct 

business within Sunny Isles, Florida, and because a substantial part(s) of the events or omissions 

giving rise to these claims occurred in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Although over thirty (30) years have passed since the effective date of Title II of

the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

9. Congress provided commercial businesses 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, Defendant continues to discriminate against 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 2 of 13
3 

people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant’s Commercial 

Property and the restaurant business therein. 

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

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. 

11. Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, is an individual with disabilities as defined 

by and pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, uses a wheelchair to ambulate. 

Plaintiff is unable to walk and/or stand for long periods of time without the use of a wheelchair. 

She is limited in major life activities, such as walking and standing. 

12. Defendant, AVENTURA BEACH CLUB CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC., owns, 

operates and/or oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots 

specific to the hotel business therein, located in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida.

13. She is frustrated and disheartened by the repetitiveness of the complaints that 

mobility-impaired individuals have been 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. Ms. Gutierrez is accordingly of the belief that the only way to affect change is through 

the mechanisms provided under the ADA. 

14. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Sunny 

Isles Beach, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visited the Commercial Property, as a 

patron/customer, to include a stay at the property on October 1, 2022 through October 9, 2022 and

encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected her ability to use and enjoy the 

property. She plans to return to and visit the Commercial Property, in order to avail herself to the 

goods and services offered to the public at the Commercial Property, if the property become 

accessible. 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 3 of 13
4 

15. Ms. Gutierrez plan to return to the Sunny Isles Beach area on or about June 21, 

2023 during a subsequent trip to Miami. She intends to revisit the Defendant’s places of public 

accommodation, not only as a patron and business invitee, but also to monitor any progress made 

with to respect to ADA compliance - she sincerely hopes that his return is not made in vain. Ms. 

Gutierrez spends much of her time in Miami-Dade and Broward County, Florida and in the same 

state as the Commercial Property, because her two (2) children and grandchildren two (2) reside 

there, not to mention her sister resides in Miami, Florida also. She intends to return to the property

at least twice within six (6) months’ time of the filing of this Complaint, as stated above. 

16. The Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, found the Commercial Property to be rife 

with ADA violations. The Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, encountered architectural barriers 

at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. 

17. The Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, has encountered architectural barriers 

that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and business therein. The 

barriers to access at Defendant’s Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff’s 

ability to visit the Commercial Property and endangered her safety. The barriers to access, which

are set forth below, have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to 

Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, and others similarly situated. 

18. Defendant, AVENTURA BEACH CLUB CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC, owns 

and/or operates, a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations 

implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendant, AVENTURA BEACH CLUB 

CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC, is also a public entity as defined by 28 CFR Part 35. Defendant, 

AVENTURA BEACH CLUB CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC, is responsible for complying with 

the obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation that Defendant, AVENTURA 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 4 of 13
5 

BEACH CLUB CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC., owns and/or operates is the Commercial 

Property located at 19201 Collins Ave, Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160. 

19. Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, has a realistic, credible, existing, and 

continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with 

respect to the described Commercial Property, but not necessarily limited to the allegations in this 

Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that they will continue to be subjected to

discrimination at the Commercial Property, in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the 

Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial Property, not only to avail 

himself of the goods and services available at this Commercial Property, but to assure herself that 

the property and business therein are in compliance with the ADA, so that she and others similarly 

situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the property without fear of discrimination. 

20. Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying her 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. 

ADA VIOLATIONS 

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

through 20 above as though fully set forth herein. 

22. Defendant, AVENTURA BEACH CLUB CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC, has 

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 other business located within the Commercial Property, as prohibited 

by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq. 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 5 of 13
6 

23. Defendant has discriminated, and continue 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 ten (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 Defendant’s

Commercial Property and restaurant business within the Commercial Property, include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

A. Guest Room - 939 

i. Doorway has a 1" vertical change of level at door threshold, violating ADAAG Section 

4.13.8 and 2010 ADA Section 404.2.5. 

ii. Cabinet encroaches over maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the door, violating 

ADAAG Section 4.13.8 and 2010 ADA Section 404.2.5. 

iii. Security hardware is mounted beyond required reach allowed for approach provided 

and is mounted at 53" above the finished floor, violating ADAAG Section 4.2.5 and 

2010 ADA Section 308.3. 

iv. Clothes rod is mounted beyond required reach allowed for approach provided and is 

mounted at 62" above the finished floor, violating ADAAG Section 4.2.5 and 2010 

ADA Section 308.2.1. 

v. Kitchen sink counter does not have the required knee clearance, violating ADAAG 

Section 4.19.2 and 2010 ADA Section 804.3.1. 

vi. Kitchen sink counter does not provide the required toe clearance, violating ADAAG 

Section 4.19.2 and 2010 ADA Section 804.3.1. 

vii. Kitchen counter is mounted at 35.75" above the finished floor to the top, violating 

ADAAG Section 4.19.2 and 2010 ADA Section 804.3.2. 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 6 of 13
7 

viii. Microwave controls are mounted at 70.25" above the finished floor, violating ADAAG 

Section 4.2.5 and 2010 ADA Section 804.6.2. 

ix. Sink does not have the required clear floor space, violating ADAAG Section 4.19.2 

and 2010 ADA Section 804.4. 

x. Sink has unwrapped bottom pipes, violating ADAAG Section 4.19.4 and 2010 ADA 

Section 804.4. 

xi. Thermostat is mounted beyond required reach allowed for approach provided and is 

mounted at 64" above the finished floor, violating ADAAG Section 4.2.5 and 2010 

ADA Section 308.2.1. 

B. Guestroom Bathroom 

i. Doorway opening has a clear width of 21.5", violating ADAAG Section 4.13.5 and 

2010 ADA Section 404.2.3. 

ii. Non-compliant knob-type door hardware, requiring grasping and turning of the wrist 

to operate, violating ADAAG Section 4.13.5 and 2010 ADA Section 404.2.3. 

iii. Maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the door is 35.75" wide for a parallel latch 

approach, violating ADAAG Section 4.13.6 and 2010 ADA Section 404.2.4. 

iv. Lavatory does not provide the required knee clearance, violating ADAAG Section 

4.19.2 and 2010 ADA Section 606.2.2. 

v. Lavatory is mounted at 34.25" above the finished floor to top of rim, violating ADAAG 

Section 4.19.2 and 2010 ADA Section 606.3. 

vi. Lavatory mirror is mounted at 42.5" above the finished floor to bottom edge of its 

reflecting surface, violating ADAAG Section 4.19.6 and 2010 ADA Section 603.3. 

vii. Water closet is center a noncompliance distance from the wall, violating ADAAG 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 7 of 13
8

Section 4.16.2 and 2010 ADA Section 604.2.

viii. Lavatory encroaches over the water closet clearance, violating ADAAG Section 4.16.2 

and 2010 ADA Section 604.3.2.

ix. Water closet does not have a side wall grab bar, violating ADAAG Section 4.16.4 and 

2010 ADA Section 604.5.1.

x. Water closet does not have a side wall grab bar, violating ADAAG Section 4.16.4 and 

2010 ADA Section 604.5.2.

xi. Toilet tissue dispenser is mounted at non-compliant location, violating ADAAG 

Section 4.16.6 and 2010 ADA Section 604.7.

xii. Water closet is encroaching into the shower clear floor space, violating ADAAG 

Section 4.21.2 and 2010 ADA Section 608.2.2.

xiii. Roll-in shower does not have grab bars, violating ADAAG Section 4.21.4 and 2010 

ADA Section 608.3.1.

xiv. Sleeping Room with Roll-in shower does not provide the required folding seat, 

violating ADAAG Section 9.1.2 and 2010 ADA Section 608.4.

xv. Shower head is a fixed-type unit, violating ADAAG Section 4.21.6 and 2010 ADA 

Section 608.6.

xvi. Roll-in shower stall has a 8" high curb, violating ADAAG Section 4.21.7 and 2010 

ADA Section 608.7.

xvii. Roll-in shower entryway is 56.5" wide, violating ADAAG Section 4.21.2 and 2010 

ADA Section 608.2.

xviii. Shower stall is 23.25" by 56.5" and does not have the required clear floor space, 

violating ADAAG Section 4.21.2 and 2010 ADA Section 608.2.

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 8 of 13
9 

xix. Standard roll-in shower controls are not mounted within the control area, violating 

ADAAG Section 4.21.5 and 2010 ADA Section 608.5.2. 

xx. Clear floor space is 59" wide and does not provide the required diameter wheelchair

turnaround space in room, violating ADAAG Section 4.2.3 and 2010 ADA Section 

304.3. 

C. Women’s Accessible Restroom by Main Lobby 

i. Lavatory mirror is mounted at a non-compliant height above the finished floor to 

bottom edge of its reflecting surface, violating ADAAG Section 4.19.6 and 2010 ADA 

Section 603.3. 

ii. Toilet seat cover dispenser is mounted beyond reach ranges and is mounted behind the 

water closet, violating ADAAG Section 4.2.5 and 2010 ADA Section 308.2.1. 

iii. Water closet side wall grab bar is mounted at non-compliant distance perpendicular 

from rear wall to centerline of its outer flange, violating ADAAG Section 4.16.4 and 

2010 ADA Section 604.5.1. 

iv. Water closet flush control is toward the wall side, violating ADAAG Section 4.16.5 

and 2010 ADA Section 604.6. 

D. Pool Area 

i. There is a pool lift provided. Pool lift was out of service due to the lack of 

maintenance, violating 2010 ADA 1009.21n. 

ii. There is no lower portion of the counter provided in the Pool Bar, violating ADAAG 

Section 7.2 and 2010 ADA Section 904.4.1. 

iii. Clearance between doors in series is not compliant. Door provides an automatic door 

opener but it was out of service due to the lack of maintenance, violating ADAAG 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 9 of 13
10 

Section 4.13.7 and 2010 ADA Section 404.2.6. 

E. Lobby 

i. There is no lower portion of the counter provided in the Lobby Cafeteria, violating 

ADAAG Section 7.2 and 2010 ADA Section 904.4.1. 

ii. Table does not provide the required knee clearance, violating ADAAG Section 4.32.3 

and 2010 ADA Section 902.2. 

iii. The Lounge Bar by the Lobby has non-compliant knob-type door hardware, requiring 

grasping and turning of the wrist to operate, violating ADAAG Section 4.13.9 and 

2010 ADA 4004.2.7. 

iv. There is no lower portion of the counter provided at the Lounge Bar by the Lobby, 

violating ADAAG Section 5.2 and 2010 ADA Section 902.3lpc. 

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

24. The discriminatory violations described in this complaint are not an exclusive list 

of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendant’s place 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, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, from further ingress, use, and equal 

enjoyment of the Commercial Property and the business therein; 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. 

25. The Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly situated, have been denied access 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 10 of 13
11

to, and have been denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities privileges, 

benefits, programs, and activities offered by Defendant’s Commercial Property and the business 

within the Commercial Property; and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by 

the Defendant because of the Defendant’s ADA violations as set forth above. 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 herein. In order to remedy this 

discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Defendant’s place of public 

accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. Plaintiff further requests a remediation plan and the opportunity to participate in 

the crafting of the remediation plan. Plaintiff requests the inspection in order to participate in 

crafting a remediation plan to address Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

26. Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to full and 

equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations 

of their places of public accommodation or commercial facility, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12181 

et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Defendant has also discriminated against Plaintiff in violation 

of 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. and 28 C.F.R. Part 35 et seq for excluding Plaintiff by reason of 

disability from participation in and denying him benefits of the services, programs, or activities of 

a public entity. Furthermore, the Defendant continues 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 11 of 13
12

of auxiliary aids and services.

27. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, will suffer irreparable harm, and have 

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 Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

28. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically 

disabled when such removal is readily achievable for their place of public 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 Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to determine all 

of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

29. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of the Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and 

gross receipts of $500,000 or less). All other conditions precedent have been met by the Plaintiff 

or waived by the Defendant.

30. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant 

Plaintiff’s Injunctive Relief, including an order to alter the property where Defendant operates its 

businesses, located within the Commercial Property located in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, the 

interiors, exterior areas, and the common exterior areas of the Commercial Property and restaurant 

business 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 Defendant cures its 

violations of the ADA.

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 12 of 13
13 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MARIA C. GUTIERREZ, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendant, 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. and Title II the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131; (ii) 

Injunctive relief against Defendant, 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 Defendant 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 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 II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dated: December 13, 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 

 

By: ___/s/_Anthony J. Perez________ 

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

 Florida Bar No.: 535451 

BEVERLY VIRUES

 Florida Bar No.: 123713 

Case 1:22-cv-24036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 13 of 13