UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

DANIEL LUGO, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 CASE NO. 9:22-cv-81490-DMM 

 

ILDAR VENTURES, LLC, 

and SEXTANT STAYS, INC., 

 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sues the Defendants, ILDAR VENTURES, LLC and SEXTANT STAYS, INC. 

(“Defendants”), 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:1

1 The response to the Complaint (DE 10, at page 1) asserts that Ildar Ventures, LLC is incorrectly named as a 

defendant, is an inactive entity, and that the correct defendant is Sextant Stays, Inc. Since Ildar Ventures, LLC is, 

according to the Florida Secretary of State, the holder of the license to operate the Florida based places of lodging at 

issue herein, and Sextant Stays, Inc. is, according to the Secretary of State, not authorized to do business in Florida, 

in an abundance of caution, both entities are named as defendants.

Case 9:22-cv-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 10
2

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 one or both Defendant's violations of Title III of 

the ADA. 

 PERSONAL JURISDICTION/VENUE

 2. Ildar Ventures, LLC is subject to personal jurisdiction since it is a 

resident of the state of Florida. Sextant Stays, Inc. is subject to personal 

jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Statute Section 48.193(1)(a) for the cause of action 

at issue herein, which arises, in part, from it operating, conducting, engaging in, or 

carrying on a business or business venture in this state and having an office or 

agency in this state and pursuant to Section 48.193(2), being engaged in substantial 

and not isolated activity within this state. Venue lies in this judicial district 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) since a substantial part of the events 

or omissions giving rise to the claim at issue, Plaintiff visiting the websites at 

issue, occurred in this district, in Boca Raton, Florida, at least two places of 

lodging, whose websites/lodging reservation systems are at issue herein, are 

situated in this district, and Defendant ILDAR VENTURES, LLC is a resident of 

this district. 

Case 9:22-cv-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 2 of 10
3

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 use a wheelchair to ambulate. Plaintiff also 

has limited use of his hands and fingers. The online lodging reservation system of 

one or both of Defendants 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 one or both Defendants are compelled to cure the 

substantive ADA violations contained on its online reservation system. Plaintiff 

intends to visit the online reservation system for one or both Defendant's places 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 online reservation system for 

compliance with 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e). 

 4. Defendant ILDAR VENTURES, LLC or SEXTANT STAYS, INC. 

is/are the owner (s) and/or operator (s) of Sextant Stays, which is comprised of 

Case 9:22-cv-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 3 of 10
4

Sextant Miami (including places of lodging at Sextant Collins Avenue , Sextant 

Harding Avenue, Sextant Brickell (multiple locations), Sextant Ocean Drive and 

Sextant Wynwood), Sextant Fort Lauderdale (including places of lodging at 

Sextant Palm) and Sextant New Orleans (including places of lodging at Sextant 

Bourbon Place, Sextant Factors Row, Sextant Motorworks, Sextant The Luzianne, 

Sextant The Brandywine and Sextant The Lola). The online reservation system for 

Sextant Stays is found at www.sextantstays.com (the "ORS"). 

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 

Case 9:22-cv-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 4 of 10
5

accommodations, including places of lodging, were required to conform to these 

regulations on or before March 15, 2012. 

 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;2

(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." 

2 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-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 5 of 10
6

 8. Sextant Stays is a place of public accommodation that owns and/or 

leases and operates places of lodging pursuant to the ADA. On Sextant Stay’s 

ORS, potential patrons may reserve a place of lodging. The ORS is subject to the 

requirements of 28 C.F.R.§ 36.302(e) and one or both Defendants is/are 

responsible for said compliance. 

 9. Most recently, during September, 2022 Plaintiff attempted to 

specifically identify and book a guaranteed reservation for an accessible place of 

lodging at Sextant Miami (including places of lodging at Sextant Collins Avenue, 

Sextant Harding Avenue, Sextant Brickell, Sextant Ocean Drive and Sextant 

Wynwood) through the ORS but was unable to do so due to one or both 

Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7. 

After the foregoing occurred, Plaintiff attempted to specifically identify and book a 

guaranteed reservation for an accessible place of lodging at Sextant Fort 

Lauderdale (including places of lodging at Sextant Palm) through the ORS but was 

unable to do so due to one or both of Defendants’ failure to comply with 

the requirements set forth in paragraph 7. After the foregoing occurred, Plaintiff 

attempted to specifically identify and book a guaranteed reservation for an 

accessible place of lodging at Sextant New Orleans (including places of lodging at 

Sextant Bourbon Place, Sextant Factors Row, Sextant Motorworks, Sextant The 

Luzianne, Sextant The Brandywine and Sextant The Lola) through the ORS but 

Case 9:22-cv-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 6 of 10
7

was unable to do so due to one or both of Defendants’ 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. One or both of Defendants has/have discriminated against Plaintiff by 

denying him access to and full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations offered at Sextant Stays 

through the ORS 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 ORS. One or both of 

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

continued operation of the ORS with discriminatory conditions. 

 12. The ORS 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 

ORS, he tried to make reservations for an accessible place of lodging at Sextant 

Stays, since he requires an accessible place of lodging due to his inability to walk, 

Case 9:22-cv-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 7 of 10
8

but it was not possible to make such a reservation. It was possible to reserve a 

place of lodging that was not accessible. For this reason Defendants have 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 ORS, he searched the site for the identification and descriptions of accessible 

features at Sextant Stays and places of lodging offered through the ORS so that he 

could assess independently whether Sextant Stays or a specific place of lodging at 

Sextant Stays met his accessibility needs in light of his disability but the ORS 

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 (s) also necessarily violated 

28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1)(iii)-(v) in that since the ORS does not describe any 

accessible place of lodging and does not, in turn, allow the reserving of such 

accessible place of lodging, the Website cannot hold such unavailable accessible 

places of lodging in the ORS 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 8 of 10
9

 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 one or both of Defendants is/are required to 

correct the ADA violations to the ORS 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 one or both of Defendants, 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 one or both 

Defendants to implement policies, consistent with the ADA, to accommodate the 

disabled, by requiring said Defendant (s) to alter and maintain the ORS in 

accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7 above.3

3 The injunction, to be meaningful and fulfill its intended purpose, should require Defendant (s) to develop, and 

strictly enforce, a policy requiring regular monitoring of the ORS. As rates and classes of the places of lodging at the 

Sextant Stays 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 Sextant Stays, the ORS 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-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 9 of 10
10

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Daniel Lugo, requests that the Court issue a 

permanent injunction enjoining Defendant(s) from continuing its/their 

discriminatory practices, ordering Defendant(s) to implement policies, consistent 

with the ADA, to accommodate the disabled, through requiring Defendant(s) to 

alter and maintain the ORS 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81490-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 10 of 10