UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE: 

DOUG LONGHINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

M & A BROTHERS REALTY 

NO. 20, INC. D/B/A MARATHON,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 

20, INC. D/B/A MARATHON, (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. § 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 

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.

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 1 of 13
2

5. At all times material, Defendant, M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 20, INC.,

owned and operated a commercial gas station located at 2735 NW 7th St, Miami, FL 33125

(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, M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 20, INC.,

was and is a Florida Corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its 

principal place of business in Pompano Beach, Florida. 

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

Commercial Property is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendant 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

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

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

9. 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, Defendant continues to discriminate against people 

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

properties.

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

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 2 of 13
3

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 

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.

12. Defendant, M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 20, INC., 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.

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

rights, and their repeated infringement, he has dedicated 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.

14. 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.

15. 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-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 3 of 13
4

because it is approximately seventeen (17) 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Defendant, M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 20, 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, M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 20, INC., is

responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The place of public accommodation 

that Defendant, M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 20, INC., owns and operates the Commercial 

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 4 of 13
5

Property located at 2735 NW 7th St, Miami, FL 33125.

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

including but not necessarily limited to the allegations in 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.

20. Defendant, M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 20, INC., as landlord and owner of 

the Commercial Property, are responsible for all ADA violations listed in the Complaint.

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

necessarily limited to the allegations in 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. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial 

Property and business within the Commercial Property, not only to avail himself of the goods and 

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 5 of 13
6

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.

22. Defendant 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 business located within the Commercial 

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

ADA VIOLATIONS 

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

22 above as though fully set forth herein.

24. Defendant, M & A BROTHERS REALTY NO. 20, INC., 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. Parking

i. The plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as designated accessible parking spaces are 

located on an excessive slope. Violation: There are accessible parking spaces located on an 

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 6 of 13
7

excessive slope violating Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG and Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. The plaintiff had difficulty exiting the vehicle, as designated accessible parking space access 

aisles are located on an excessive slope. Violation: There are accessible parking space access 

aisles located on an excessive slope violating Section 4.6.3 of the ADAAG and Section 502.4 

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

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. The plaintiff could not enter the store without assistance, as the required level landing is not 

provided. Violation: A level landing that is 60 inches minimum perpendicular to the doorway 

is not provided at accessible entrances violating Section 4.13.6 and Figure 25(a) of the 

ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

ii. The plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel due to abrupt changes in level. 

Violation: There are vertical changes in levels of greater than 1⁄2 inch, violating Sections 4.3.8 

and 4.5.2 of the ADAAG and Section 303 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable.

iii. 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 

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.

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 7 of 13
8

iv. 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.

v. 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.

C. Public Restrooms

i. The plaintiff had difficulty using the doorknob on the restroom door without assistance, as it 

requires tight grasping. Violation: The restroom door has non-compliant hardware for disabled 

patrons, violating Sections 4.13.9 & 4.27.4 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 & 404.2.7 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

ii. 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, 

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

whose resolution is readily achievable.

iii. The plaintiff could not enter the restroom without assistance, as the door width is too narrow. 

Violation: The clear width at restroom doors is less than the prescribed minimums violating 

Section 4.13.5 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

iv. The plaintiff could not use the lavatory without assistance, as the required knee & toe 

clearances are not provided. Violation: There are lavatories in public restrooms without the 

required clearances provided, violating the requirements in Section 4.19.2 and Figure 31 of the 

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 8 of 13
9

ADAAG and Sections 306 and 606.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

v. The plaintiff could not use the lavatory faucets without assistance, as they are not operating 

correctly and not maintained. Violation: The hand-operated metering faucets do not remain 

open for 10 seconds minimum violating Section 4.19.5 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 

Section 606.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vi. The plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as a trashcan obstructs the clear 

floor space. Violation: The required clear floor space is not provided next to the toilet, violating 

Section 4.16.2 & Figure 28 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 604.3 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vii. The plaintiff could not use the mirror, as it is mounted too high. Violation: The mirrors 

provided in the restrooms are in violation of the requirements in Section 4.19.6 of the ADAAG 

and Section 603.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

viii. The plaintiff had difficulty using the toilet without assistance, as it is not mounted at the 

required distance from the side wall. Violation: The water closet is mounted at a non-compliant 

distance from the side wall, violating Section 4.16.2 and Figure 28 of the ADAAG and Section 

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

ix. The plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the rear grab bar is missing. 

Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Section 4.16.4 & 

Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Sections 604.5.2 & 609.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 9 of 13
10

x. The plaintiff could not use the toilet paper dispenser without assistance, as it is not mounted at 

the required location. Violation: The toilet paper dispenser is not mounted in accordance with 

Section 4.16.6 and Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 604.7 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

xi. The plaintiff could not use the restroom without assistance, as the required clear floor space 

was not provided. Violation: Compliant clear floor space is not provided due to the door 

swinging into the restroom, violating Sections 4.2.3, 4.22.2, and 4.22.3 of the ADAAG and 

Sections 304.3 and 603.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

25. The discriminatory violations described in Counts I through III are not an exclusive 

list of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendant’s 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.

26. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 10 of 13
11

privileges, benefits, programs and activities offered by Defendants, Defendant’s buildings, 

business and facilities; and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the 

Defendant because of the Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s place of 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.

27. Defendant has 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, 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 of auxiliary aids and services.

28. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 11 of 13
12

to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

29. Defendant 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 

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 noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

30. 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 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.

31. 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 Defendant operate their 

business, located at and/or within the commercial property located at 2735 NW 7th Street, Miami, 

Florida 33125, 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 Defendant cure the violations of the ADA.

 WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendant at the commencement 

Case 1:22-cv-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 12 of 13
13

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 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 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-24046-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 13 of 13