1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

RYAN PFLIPSEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) FILE No. 5:20-cv-496

RITA’S MEXICAN COCINA, LLC, )

and STEIN REAL I FAMILY LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP, ) 

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, RYAN PFLIPSEN, by and through the undersigned counsel, and 

files this, his Complaint against Defendants RITA’S MEXICAN COCINA, LLC, and 

STEIN REAL I FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, pursuant to the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (“ADA”) and the ADA’s Accessibility 

Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36 (“ADAAG”). In support thereof, Plaintiff respectfully 

shows this Court as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331 and 1343 for Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., based upon 

Defendants’ failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the 

ADA.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff RYAN PFLIPSEN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is, and has been at all 

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 15
2

times relevant to the instant matter, a natural person residing in San Antonio, Texas

(Bexar County).

3. Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the ADA. 

4. Plaintiff is required to traverse in a wheelchair and is substantially limited 

in performing one or more major life activities, including but not limited to: walking, 

standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. 

5. Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 

6. Plaintiff is also an independent advocate of the rights of similarly situated 

disabled persons and is a “tester” for the purpose of asserting his civil rights, monitoring, 

ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation are in compliance 

with the ADA. His motivation to return to a location, in part, stems from a desire to 

utilize ADA litigation to make Plaintiff’s community more accessible for Plaintiff and 

others, and pledges to do whatever is necessary to create the requisite standing to confer 

jurisdiction upon this Court so an injunction can be issued correcting the numerous ADA 

violations on this Property, including returning to the Property as soon as it is accessible 

(“Advocacy Purposes”).” 

7. Defendant RITA’S MEXICAN COCINA, LLC (hereinafter “Rita’s”), is a 

Texas limited liability company that transacts business in the state of Texas and within 

this judicial district. 

8. Rita’s may be properly served with process via its registered agent for 

service, to wit: Chong-Hui Pae Xac, 6406 Bandera Road, San Antonio, Texas, 78238.

9. Defendant STEIN REAL I FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 15
3

(hereinafter “Stein Real”) is a for profit limited partnership that transacts business in the 

state of Texas and within this judicial district. 

10. Stein Real may be properly served with process through its registered 

agent, to wit: Steinreal Corp., 2250 Thousand Oaks, Suite 100-102, San Antonio, Texas 

78232.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. On or about November 27, 2019, Plaintiff was a customer at “Rita’s 

Mexican Cocina” a business located at 6406 Bandera Road, San Antonio, Texas 78238, 

referenced herein as the “Rita’s.” 

12. Rita’s is the lessee or sub-lessee of the real property and improvements that 

are the subject of this action. 

13. Steinreal is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements

that the Rita’s is situated upon and that is the subject of this action, referenced herein as 

the “Property.” 

14. Plaintiff lives approximately 4 miles from the Rita’s and Property.

15. Plaintiff’s access to the business(es) located at 6406 Bandera Road, San 

Antonio, Bexar County Property Identification number 217670 (“the Property”), and/or 

full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, foods, drinks, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations offered therein were denied and/or limited because of

his disabilities, and he will be denied and/or limited in the future unless and until 

Defendant is compelled to remove the physical barriers to access and correct the ADA 

violations that exist at the Rita’s and Property, including those set forth in this Complaint. 

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 15
4

16. Plaintiff has visited the Property at least once before as a customer and 

advocate for the disabled. Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property within six months 

after the barriers are removed to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the 

Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer, to 

determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to maintain standing for this 

lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes.

17. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Rita’s and Property to purchase goods and/or 

services.

18. Plaintiff travelled to the Rita’s and Property as a customer and as an 

independent advocate for the disabled, encountered or were made aware of the barriers to 

access at the Rita’s and Property that are detailed in this Complaint, engaged those 

barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will continue to suffer such harm and 

injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access present at the Rita’s and Property.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA AND ADAAG

19. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

20. Congress found, among other things, that:

(i) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental 

disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a 

whole is growing older;

(ii) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals 

with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a 

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 15
5

serious and pervasive social problem;

(iii) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such 

critical areas as employment, housing public accommodations, 

education, transportation, communication, recreation, 

institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public 

services;

(iv) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of 

discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the 

discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and 

communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to 

make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary 

qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to 

lesser service, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other 

opportunities; and

(v) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination 

and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to 

compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for 

which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United 

States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from 

dependency and non-productivity.

42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(1) - (3), (5) and (9).

21. Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA was to: 

(i) provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the 

elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(ii) provide a clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and

* * * * *

(iv) invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to 

enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in 

order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day 

by people with disabilities.

42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 5 of 15
6

22. The congressional legislation provided places of public accommodation 

one and a half years from the enactment of the ADA to implement its requirements. 

23. The effective date of Title III of the ADA was January 26, 1992 (or January 

26, 1993 if a defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of $500,000 or 

less). 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 36.508(a).

24. The Rita’s is a public accommodation and service establishment.

25. The Property is a public accommodation and service establishment. 

26. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), on July 26, 1991, the 

Department of Justice and Office of Attorney General promulgated federal regulations to 

implement the requirements of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

27. Public accommodations were required to conform to these regulations by 

January 26, 1992 (or by January 26, 1993 if a defendant has 10 or fewer employees and 

gross receipts of $500,000 or less). 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; 28 C.F.R. § 36.508(a).

28. The Rita’s must be, but is not, in compliance with the ADA and ADAAG. 

29. The Property must be, but is not, in compliance with the ADA and 

ADAAG. 

30. Plaintiff has attempted to, and has to the extent possible, accessed the 

Rita’s and the Property in his capacity as a customer of the Rita’s and Property and as an 

independent advocate for the disabled, but could not fully do so because of his disabilities 

resulting from the physical barriers to access, dangerous conditions and ADA violations 

that exist at the Rita’s and Property that preclude and/or limit his access to the Rita’s and 

Property and/or the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 6 of 15
7

accommodations offered therein, including those barriers, conditions and ADA violations 

more specifically set forth in this Complaint.

31. Plaintiff intends to visit the Rita’s and Property again in the very near 

future as a customer in order to utilize all of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and/or accommodations commonly offered at the Rita’s and Property and as 

an independent advocate for the disabled, but will be unable to fully do so because of his 

disability and the physical barriers to access, dangerous conditions and ADA violations 

that exist at the Rita’s and Property that preclude and/or limit his access to the Rita’s and 

Property and/or the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

accommodations offered therein, including those barriers, conditions and ADA violations 

more specifically set forth in this Complaint. 

32. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff (and others with 

disabilities) by denying his access to, and full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Rita’s and Property, as 

prohibited by, and by failing to remove architectural barriers as required by, 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

33. Defendants will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with 

disabilities unless and until Defendants are compelled to remove all physical barriers that 

exist at the Rita’s and Property, including those specifically set forth herein, and make the 

Rita’s and Property accessible to and usable by Plaintiff and other persons with 

disabilities.

34. A specific list of unlawful physical barriers, dangerous conditions and 

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 7 of 15
8

ADA violations which Plaintiff experienced and/or observed that precluded and/or 

limited Plaintiff’s access to the Rita’s and Property and the full and equal enjoyment of 

the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of the Rita’s

and Property include, but are not limited to:

(a) ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

(i) Near Unit 6418, there are two accessible parking spaces that are not located on 

the shortest distance to the accessible route leading to the accessible entrances 

in violation of section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This violation 

made it difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(ii) Near Unit 6418 there are three accessible parking spaces missing access aisles 

in violation of section 502.3 and 502.1 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This 

violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter his vehicle when 

parked in theses accessible parking spaces.

(iii) Near Unit 6418, there are three accessible parking spaces that do not have a 

properly marked access aisle in violation of section 502.3.3 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff 

to access the accessible entrances of the Property.

(iv) Near Unit 6418, there is an excessive vertical rise along the accessible route 

or path where the parking lot meets the Chattahoochee surface, in violation of 

section 303.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to access public features of the Property.

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 8 of 15
9

(v) Near Unit 6418, due to the presence of stairs with no nearby ramp, the Property 

lacks a single accessible route connecting accessible facilities, accessible 

elements and/or accessible spaces of the Property in violation of section 

206.2.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it difficult for 

Plaintiff to access public features of the Property.

(vi) Accessible parking spaces are not properly located and/or distributed on the 

Property in violation of section 208.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking space.

(vii) Due to a policy of not having parking stops for the parking spaces directly 

in front of the exterior access route, cars routinely pull up all the way to the 

curb and the "nose" of the vehicle extends into the access route causing the 

exterior access route to routinely have clear widths below the minimum thirtysix (36") inch requirement specified by Section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

Standards. This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access 

exterior public features of the Property. 

(viii) Due to a policy of not having parking stops for the parking spaces directly 

in front of the exterior access route, cars routinely pull up all the way to the 

curb and the "nose" of the vehicle extends into the access route as a result, in 

violation of section 502.7 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards, parking spaces are 

not properly designed so that parked cars and vans cannot obstruct the required 

clear width of adjacent accessible routes.

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 9 of 15
10

(ix) The Property has an accessible ramp that lacks finished edges or edge 

protection and/or is otherwise in violation of section 405.9 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to access the 

units of the Property.

(x) The Property lacks an accessible route from accessible parking space to the 

accessible entrance of the Property, due to the fact that a vehicle parked in the 

accessible parking space will block the accessible ramp, in violation of section 

206.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it difficult for 

Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(xi) Across from Rita’s, there is at least one accessible parking space that does 

not have a properly marked access aisle in violation of section 502.3.3 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it dangerous and difficult for 

Plaintiff to access the accessible entrances of the Property.

(xii) Across from Rita’s, the accessible parking space is missing a proper 

identification sign in violation of section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking 

space.

(xiii) Across from Rita’s, the accessible parking space is not located on the 

shortest distance to the accessible route leading to the accessible entrances in 

violation of section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This violation 

made it difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 10 of 15
11

(xiv) Near Rita’s, there is an excessive vertical rise at the top of the accessible 

ramp in violation of Section 303.2 and 405.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access 

public features of the Property.

(xv) Inside Rita’s, the to-go/take-out counter lacking any portion of the counter 

that has a maximum height of 36 (thirty-six) inches from the finished floor in 

violation of section 904.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, all portions of the 

to-go/take-out counter exceed 36 (thirty-six) inches in height from the finished 

floor. This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to properly transact business 

at the Property.

(xvi) Inside Rita’s, there are area of the restaurant that are not accessible due to 

stairs with a rise of approximately eight inches with no nearby ramp. As a 

result, the Property lacks an accessible route connecting all accessible elements 

and features inside the Property in violation of section 206.2.4 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards. This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to access 

public features of the Property.

(xvii) Due to the policy of the operator/tenant as to where to place chairs in the 

restaurant near the freezer, the interior has walking surfaces leading to the 

restroom lacking a 36 (thirty-six) inch clear width in violation of section 

403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it difficult for 

Plaintiff to properly utilize public features in the Property.

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 11 of 15
12

(xviii) Defendants fail to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that 

all facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

RITA’S CANTINA’S BATHROOM’S

(i) The restroom lacks signage in compliance with sections 216.8 and 703 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This made it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any 

disabled individual to locate accessible restroom facilities.

(ii) The restrooms lack proper door hardware in violation of section 404.2.7 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This made it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any 

disabled individual to utilize the restroom facilities.

(iii) The lavatories and/or sinks in the restrooms have exposed pipes and 

surfaces and are not insulated or configured to protect against contact in 

violation of section 606.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This made it 

difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to safely utilize the 

restroom facilities.

(iv) The actionable mechanism of the paper towel dispenser in the restroom 

is located outside the prescribed vertical reach ranges set forth in section 

308.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This made it difficult for Plaintiff 

and/or any disabled individual to safely utilize the restroom facilities.

(v) The restrooms have grab bars adjacent to the commode which are not in 

compliance with section 604.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards as the rear bar is 

too short. This made it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to 

safely utilize the restroom facilities.

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 12 of 15
13

(vi) The restrooms have grab bars adjacent to the commode which are not in 

compliance with section 604.5.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards as the rear bar 

does not properly extend at least 24 inches from the centerline of the 

toilet. This made it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to 

safely utilize the restroom facilities.

(vii) The hand operated flush control is not located on the open side of the 

accessible toilet in violation of section 604.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This made it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to safely 

utilize the restroom facilities.

35. The violations enumerated above may not be a complete list of the barriers, 

conditions or violations encountered by Plaintiff and/or which exist at the Rita’s and 

Property. 

36. Plaintiff requires an inspection of Rita’s and Property in order to determine 

all of the discriminatory conditions present at the Rita’s and Property in violation of the 

ADA. 

37. The removal of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA 

violations alleged herein is readily achievable and can be accomplished and carried out 

without significant difficulty or expense. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv); 42 U.S.C. § 

12181(9); 28 C.F.R. § 36.304.

38. All of the violations alleged herein are readily achievable to modify to 

bring the Rita’s and Property into compliance with the ADA.

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 13 of 15
14

39. Upon information and good faith belief, the removal of the physical barriers 

and dangerous conditions present at the Rita’s and Property is readily achievable because 

the nature and cost of the modifications are relatively low.

40. Upon information and good faith belief, the removal of the physical barriers 

and dangerous conditions present at the Rita’s and Property is readily achievable because 

Defendants have the financial resources to make the necessary modifications.

41. Upon information and good faith belief, the Rita’s and Property have been 

altered since 2010.

42. In instances where the 2010 ADAAG standards do not apply, the 1991 

ADAAG standards apply, and all of the alleged violations set forth herein can be 

modified to comply with the 1991 ADAAG standards.

43. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, is suffering irreparable harm, 

and reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless and 

until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and 

ADA violations that exist at the Rita’s and Property, including those alleged herein. 

44. Plaintiff’s requested relief serves the public interest.

45. The benefit to Plaintiff and the public of the relief outweighs any resulting 

detriment to Defendants.

46. Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and 

costs of litigation from Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188 and 12205.

47. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), this Court is provided authority to grant 

injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including the issuance of an Order directing Defendants to 

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 14 of 15
15

modify the Rita’s and Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Rita’s in violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

(b) That the Court find Colonnade III in violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

(c) That the Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from 

continuing their discriminatory practices;

(d) That the Court issue an Order requiring Defendants to (i) remove the 

physical barriers to access and (ii) alter the subject Rita’s to make it readily 

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent 

required by the ADA;

(e) That the Court award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation 

expenses and costs; and

(f) That the Court grant such further relief as deemed just and equitable in light 

of the circumstances.

Dated: April 23, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dennis R. Kurz

Dennis R. Kurz

Attorney-in-Charge for Plaintiff

Texas State Bar ID No. 24068183

Kurz Law Group, LLC

4355 Cobb Parkway, Suite J-285

Atlanta, GA 30339

Tele: (404) 805-2494

Fax: (770) 428-5356

Email: dennis@kurzlawgroup.com 

Case 5:20-cv-00496-JKP-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 15 of 15