Caplan v. TERE AUTO SERVICES INC. et al

Filing 14

ORDER granting #13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 5/6/2022. See attached document for full details. (ls)

Case 0:22-cv-60651-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2022 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 22-cv-60651-BLOOM/Valle
HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERE AUTO SERVICES INC.,
a Florida Profit Corporation
doing business as
Peerless Auto Body, and
PEERLESS HOLDINGS INC.,
a Florida Profit Corporation,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants Tere Auto Services, Inc. and Peerless
Holdings, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. [13] (“Motion”),
with respect to Plaintiff Howard Michael Cohan’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, ECF No. [1]
(“Complaint”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the Complaint, the record, the
applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
granted.
Plaintiff, who suffers from a disability, initiated this action on March 31, 2022, for relief
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (“ADA”). The
Complaint alleges violations of the ADA relating to real property and business located at 590 S
Dixie Hwy E, Pompano Beach, FL 33060 (“Property”). On May 12, 2022, Defendants filed their
Answer, ECF No. [12], “admitting or not contesting any of the allegations in the complaint.” ECF

Case 0:22-cv-60651-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2022 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-60651-BLOOM/Valle
No. [13] at 1. Accordingly, Defendants submit that “there is no dispute over Plaintiff’s claim, and
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in his favor.” Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).
“After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move
for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A party may move for judgment on the
pleadings if there are no material facts in dispute. See Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan
Cos., 404 F.3d 1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1291
(11th Cir. 2002). In rendering judgment, a court may consider the substance of the pleadings and
any judicially noticed facts. Termilus v. Marksman Sec. Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20356 (S.D.
Fla. Feb. 19, 2016) (citing Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir.
1998)).
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is governed by the same standard as a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Guarino v. Wyeth LLC, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2011).
As such, a complaint must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading
standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”).
Nor can a complaint rest on “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)). “To survive a motion
to dismiss a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“In order to prevail under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff generally has the burden of
proving: (1) that she is an individual with a disability; (2) that defendant is a place of public
accommodation; and (3) that defendant denied her full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

2

Case 0:22-cv-60651-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2022 Page 3 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-60651-BLOOM/Valle
facilities or privileges offered by defendant (4) on the basis of her disability.” Schiavo ex rel
Schindler v. Schiavo, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1165 (M.D. Fla.), aff’d sub nom. Schiavo ex rel.
Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Larsen v. Carnival Corp., Inc., 242
F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2003). Here, Defendants have admitted to those allegations.
Moreover, Defendants have admitted to Plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, costs, and
expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205. See ECF No. [13] at 3.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. [13], is GRANTED.
2. Defendants are ORDERED to remove the physical barriers to access and alter the
subject Property to make it readily accessible to and useable by individuals with
disabilities to the extent required by the ADA.
3. Final Judgment will be entered by a separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 6, 2022.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Counsel of record

3