1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA 

PORTFOLIO) LLC D/B/A BIRD 

LUDLAM, GABLES AH, LLC D/B/A 

CAROLINA ALE HOUSE, WINNDIXIE STORES, INC. D/B/A WINNDIXIE #249 and ORSILLO 

ENTERPRISES INC D/B/A BIRD 

ROAD DAIRY QUEEN, 

Defendants. 

/ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues EQUITY ONE 

(FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC D/B/A BIRD LUDLAM, GABLES AH, LLC D/B/A 

CAROLINA ALE HOUSE, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. D/B/A WINN-DIXIE #249 and 

ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC D/B/A BIRD ROAD DAIRY QUEEN (hereinafter

“Defendants”), 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.

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 1 of 17
2 

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, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, is an individual over eighteen

years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.

5. At all times material, Defendant, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, 

owned and operated a commercial shopping plaza at 6700 SW 40th Street Miami, Florida 33155

(hereinafter the “Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that 

place of public accommodation in Miami, Florida. 

6. At all times material, Defendant, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, 

was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, organized under the laws of Florida with its 

principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. Defendant, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA 

PORTFOLIO) LLC, holds itself out to the public as “Bird Ludlam.” 

7. At all times material, Defendant, GABLES AH, LLC, owned and operated a 

commercial restaurant at 6810 SW 40th St, Miami, FL 331551 (hereinafter the “Commercial 

Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation 

in Miami, Florida. 

8. At all times material, Defendant, GABLES AH, LLC, was and is a Florida Limited 

Liability Company, organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in 

Pembroke Pines, Florida. Defendant, GABLES AH, LLC, holds itself out to the public as “Carolina 

1 This address is located within Defendant’s, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, commercial shopping 

plaza at 6700 SW 40th Street Miami, Florida 331555.

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 2 of 17
3

Ale House.”

9. At all times material, Defendant, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., owned and 

operated a commercial restaurant at 6770 Bird Rd, Miami, FL 33155 2 (hereinafter the 

“Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public 

accommodation in Miami, Florida.

10. At all times material, Defendant, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., was and is a 

Florida Profit Corporation, organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business 

in Cooper City, Florida. Defendant, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., holds itself out to the public 

as “Winn-Dixie #249.”

11. At all times material, Defendant, ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC, owned and 

operated a commercial restaurant at 4040 SW 67th Ave, Miami, Florida 331553 (hereinafter the 

“Commercial Property”) and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public 

accommodation in Miami, Florida.

12. At all times material, Defendant, ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC, was and is a 

Florida Profit Corporation, organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business 

in Miami, Florida. Defendant, ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC, holds itself out to the public as 

“Bird Road Dairy Queen.”

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

Commercial Property is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants 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.

2 This address is located within Defendant’s, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, commercial shopping 

plaza at 6700 SW 40th Street Miami, Florida 331555. 3 This address is located within Defendant’s, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, commercial shopping 

plaza at 6700 SW 40th Street Miami, Florida 331555.

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 3 of 17
4 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

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

the ADA, Defendants have yet to make itsfacilities accessible to individuals with disabilities.

15. 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, Defendants have continued to discriminate against 

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

the businesses therein. 

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

requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. 

17. Plaintiff, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, is an individual with 

disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO 

uses a wheelchair to ambulate. NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO has very limited use of 

his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist.

He also has lower paraplegia, inhibits him from 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. 

18. Defendant, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, owns, operates and

oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the 

businesses therein. 

9. Defendants, GABLES AH, LLC, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. and ORSILLO 

ENTERPRISES INC, own, operate and/or oversee their respective businesses within the 

Commercial Property, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, that are the subject of this Action. 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 4 of 17
5

19. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Miami,

Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property, to include visits to the 

Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property on August 19, 2022

and December 01, 2022 and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his 

ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property and

businesses located within the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of the goods and

services offered there, and because it is approximately twenty-five (25) miles from his residence, 

and is near other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the 

Commercial Property within two (2) months from the date of the filing of this Complaint. 

20. The Plaintiff, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, found 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.

21. The Plaintiff, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, has encountered

architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The 

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

ability to visit 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, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, and others 

similarly situated.

22. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, GABLES AH, LLC,

WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. and ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC, own and operate a place of 

public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 5 of 17
6 

CFR 36.201 (a) and 36.104. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, 

GABLES AH, LLC, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. and ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC, are 

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

that Defendants, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, GABLES AH, LLC, WINNDIXIE STORES, INC. and ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC, own and operate the Commercial 

Property located at 6700 SW 40th Street Miami, Florida 33155. 

23. Defendant, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, GABLES AH, LLC, 

WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. and ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC, as landlord and owner of the 

Commercial Property, is responsible for all ADA violations listed in Counts I through IV, in this 

Complaint.

24. Plaintiff, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, has a realistic, credible, 

existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants’ non-compliance with the 

ADA with respect to the described Commercial Property, including but not necessarily limited to 

the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue 

to be subjected to discrimination at the Commercial Property, in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff

desires to visit the Commercial Property and businesses located therein, not only to avail himself 

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

Commercial Property is in compliance with the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will 

have full and equal enjoyment of the Commercial Property without fear of discrimination.

25. Defendants have 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, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq. 

COUNT I - ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 6 of 17
7 

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

25 above as though fully set forth herein. 

27. Defendant, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, 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 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.

iii. The Plaintiff had difficulty accessing the facility, as there are designated accessible 

parking spaces located too far from an accessible route to the facility. Violation: Some 

of the accessible parking spaces are not located on the shortest route to an accessible 

entrance, violating Section 4.6.2 of the ADAAG and Section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

B. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it was not continuous and 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 7 of 17
8

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.

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 there are cross slopes in 

excess of 2%. Violation: The path of travel contains excessive cross slopes in violation 

of Section 4.3.7 of the ADAAG and Section 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

iv. The Plaintiff had difficulty using some of the curb ramps, as the slopes are excessive. 

Violation: There are curb ramps at the facility that contain excessive slopes, violating 

Section 4.7.2 of the ADAAG and Sections 405.2 and 406.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable.

v. The Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it is not continuous and 

accessible. Violation: There are inaccessible routes from the public sidewalk and 

transportation stop. These are violations of the requirements in Sections 4.3.2(1), 4.3.8, 

4.5.1, and 4.5.2 of the ADAAG and Sections 206.2.1, 302.1, 303, and 402.2 of the 2010 

ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

vi. The Plaintiff could not enter tenant spaces without assistance, as the required level 

landing is not provided. Violation: A level landing that is 60 inches minimum 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 8 of 17
9 

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. 

vii. The Plaintiff could not navigate the curb ramps without assistance, as there are curb 

ramps at the facility that contain excessive flared side slopes, violating Section 4.7.5 of 

the ADAAG and Section 406.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

COUNT II - ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC and GABLES AH, LLC

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

25 above as though fully set forth herein. 

29. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC and GABLES AH, 

LLC, have 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 

Defendants have 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 and the businesses 

within, include but are not limited to, the following:

A. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. The Plaintiff could not enter areas of the restaurant without assistance, as the required 

maneuvering clearance is not provided. Violation: There are doors in the restaurant that 

do not provide the required latch side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG 

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

achievable. 

B. Access to Goods and Services

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 9 of 17
10 

i. The Plaintiff could not utilize the bar counter, as it is mounted too high. Violation: 

There are bar counters that are not at the prescribed height, violating Section 4.32.4 and 

5.2 of the ADAAG and Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is 

readily achievable. 

ii. There is seating provided that does not comply with the standards prescribed in Section 

4.32 of the ADAAG and Sections 226 & 902 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable. 

C. Public Restrooms 

i. 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.

ii. 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 and Figure 28 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 

Section 604.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

iii. 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 ADAAG and Sections 306 and 606.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

iv. The Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the side grab bar is 

not at the required location. Violation: The grab bars in the accessible toilet 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 10 of 17
11 

compartment do not comply with the requirements prescribed in Section 4.17.6 of the 

ADAAG and Section 604.5.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

COUNT III – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC and WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.

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

25 above as though fully set forth herein. 

31. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC and WINN-DIXIE 

STORES, INC., have 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 Defendants have 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 and the 

businesses within, include but are not limited to, the following:

A. Public Restrooms 

i. The plaintiff could not use the accessible toilet compartment door without assistance, 

as it is not self-closing and does not have compliant door hardware. Violation: The 

accessible toilet compartment door does not provide hardware and features that comply 

with Sections 4.17.5 and 4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Sections 309.4 and 604.8.1.2 of 

the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

ii. The plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are 

not wrapped. Violation: The lavatory pipes are not fully wrapped or insulated violating 

Section 4.19.4 of the ADAAG and Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 11 of 17
12 

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.

iv. 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 and Figure 28 of the ADAAG, 28 CFR 36.211, and 

Section 604.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

v. 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 in the accessible 

toilet compartment is mounted at a non-compliant distance from the wall in violation 

of Section 4.17.3 and Figure 30(a) of the ADAAG and Section 604.2 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable. 

vi. The plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as objects are mounted 

less than 12” above a grab bar obstructing its use. Violation: The grab bars in the 

accessible toilet compartment do not comply with the requirements prescribed in 

Sections 4.17.6 and 4.26 of the ADAAG and Section 609.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

COUNT IV – ADA VIOLATIONS

AS TO EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) 

LLC and ORSILLO ENTERPRISES INC

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

25 above as though fully set forth herein. 

33. Defendants, EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC and ORSILLO 

ENTERPRISES INC, have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against Plaintiff in 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 12 of 17
13 

violation of the ADA by failing, inter alia, to have accessible facilities by January 26, 1992 (or 

January 26, 1993, if Defendants have 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 

and the businesses within, include but are not limited to, the following:

A. Entrance Access and Path of Travel

i. The plaintiff could not traverse through areas of the store, as the required 36” path is 

not provided. Violation: A continuous path of travel connecting all essential elements 

of the store is not provided, violating Sections 4.2.1, 4.3.2(2), & 4.3.3 of the ADAAG 

and Sections 206.2.2 & 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily 

achievable.

B. Access to Goods and Services

i. There is seating provided that does not comply with the standards prescribed in Section 

4.32 of the ADAAG and Sections 226 & 902 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose 

resolution is readily achievable.

C. Public Restrooms 

i. The plaintiff could not exit the restroom without assistance, as the required 

maneuvering clearance is not provided. Violation: The restroom door does not provide 

the required latch side clearance violating Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 

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

ii. 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 13 of 17
14 

iii. The plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as objects are mounted 

less than 12” above a grab bar obstructing its use. Violation: The grab bars do not 

comply with the requirements prescribed in Sections 4.16.4 & 4.26 of the ADAAG and 

Section 609.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, whose resolution is readily achievable.

iv. 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. 

v. The plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the side grab bar is 

not at the required location. Violation: The grab bars do not comply with the 

requirements prescribed in Section 4.16.4 & Figure 29 of the ADAAG and Section 

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

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE BASIS

34. The discriminatory violations described in this Complaint are not an exclusive list 

of the Defendants’ ADA violations. Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendants’ 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; Plaintiff requests to be physically present at such inspection in

conjunction with Rule 34 and timely notice. A 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 14 of 17
15

35. The 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 privileges, 

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

businesses within the Commercial Property; and has otherwise been discriminated against and 

damaged by the Defendants because of the Defendants’ 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 Defendants’ 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 in order to participate in crafting a remediation plan to address 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

36. Defendants have 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. Defendants have 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 Defendants continue 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 15 of 17
16

with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other 

individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services.

37. 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 Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. 

38. Defendants are 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 Defendants’ place of public accommodation in order to 

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

39. Notice to Defendants is not required as a result of the Defendants’ 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 the 

Plaintiff or waived by the Defendants.

40. 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 Defendants operate their

businesses, located within the Commercial Property located in Broward County, Florida, the 

interiors, exterior areas, and the common exterior areas of 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 Defendants cure its violations of the ADA.

Case 1:22-cv-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 16 of 17
17 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court issue (i) a Declaratory Judgment determining Defendants, 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 Defendants, 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 Defendants 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 22, 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-24175-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 17 of 17