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-497

PBH, INC. d/b/a BANDERA )

CROSSING, ) 

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

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

files this, his Complaint against Defendant PBH, INC. d/b/a BANDERA CROSSING, 

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 

Defendant’s 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 

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

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 15
2

(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 PBH, INC. d/b/a BANDERA CROSSING (hereinafter “PBH, 

INC.”) is a Texas for profit corporation that transacts business in the state of Texas and 

within this judicial district. 

8. PBH, INC. may be properly served with process via its registered agent for 

service, to wit: Leonard Holzman, 10924 Vance Jackson, #306, San Antonio, Texas 

78230.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 15
3

9. On or about May 11, 2019, Plaintiff was a customer at “Wing Daddy Sauce 

House” a business located at 6430 Bandera Road, San Antonio, Texas 78238, referenced 

herein as the “Wing Daddy.” 

10. PBH, INC. is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements

that the Wing Daddy is situated upon and that is the subject of this action, referenced 

herein as the “Property.” 

11. Plaintiff lives approximately 7 miles from the Wing Daddy and Property.

12. Plaintiff’s access to the business(es) located at 6430 Bandera Road, San 

Antonio, Bexar County Property Identification number 217668 (“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 Wing Daddy and Property, including those set forth in this 

Complaint. 

13. 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 

or sooner, as soon as the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the 

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

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

lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes.

14. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Wing Daddy and Property to purchase goods 

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 15
4

and/or services.

15. Plaintiff travelled to the Wing Daddy and Property as a customer and as an 

independent advocate for the disabled, encountered the barriers to access at the Wing 

Daddy 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 Wing Daddy and Property.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA AND ADAAG

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

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

17. 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 

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 

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 15
5

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).

18. 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).

19. The congressional legislation provided places of public accommodation 

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

20. 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).

21. The Wing Daddy is a public accommodation and service establishment.

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

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 5 of 15
6

23. 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. 

24. 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).

25. The Wing Daddy must be, but is not, in compliance with the ADA and 

ADAAG. 

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

ADAAG. 

27. Plaintiff has attempted to, and has to the extent possible, accessed the Wing 

Daddy and the Property in his capacity as a customer of the Wing Daddy 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 Wing Daddy and Property that preclude and/or limit his access 

to the Wing Daddy 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.

28. Plaintiff intends to visit the Wing Daddy 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 Wing Daddy and 

Property and as an independent advocate for the disabled, but will be unable to fully do 

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 6 of 15
7

so because of his disability and the physical barriers to access, dangerous conditions and 

ADA violations that exist at the Wing Daddy and Property that preclude and/or limit his 

access to the Wing Daddy 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. 

29. Defendant has 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 Wing Daddy and Property, as 

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

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

30. Defendant will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with 

disabilities unless and until Defendant is compelled to remove all physical barriers that 

exist at the Wing Daddy and Property, including those specifically set forth herein, and 

make the Wing Daddy and Property accessible to and usable by Plaintiff and other 

persons with disabilities.

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

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

limited Plaintiff’s access to the Wing Daddy and Property and the full and equal 

enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations 

of the Wing Daddy and Property include, but are not limited to:

(a) ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 7 of 15
8

(i) Near Wing Daddy, the accessible parking spaces and associated access aisle 

have a surface slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 

ADAAG standards and are not level. This violation made it dangerous and 

difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the 

Property.

(ii) Near Wing Daddy, the access aisle to the accessible parking space is not level 

due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violation of 

section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the 

Property. In addition, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into 

the access aisle of the accessible parking space in violation of section 406.5 of 

the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This violation made it difficult and dangerous 

for Plaintiff to exit/enter their vehicle.

(iii) Near Wing Daddy, the access aisle has excessive vertical rise and is in 

violation of section 303.2 and 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their 

vehicle while parked at the Property.

(iv) Near Unit 70, the accessible parking spaces have a surface slope in excess 

of 1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and are not 

level. This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and 

enter their vehicle while parked at the Property.

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 8 of 15
9

(v) Near Unit 70, the accessible parking space has a cross-slope in excess of 1:48 

in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and is not level. 

This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter 

their vehicle while parked at the Property.

(vi) Near Unit 70, the access aisles to the accessible parking spaces are not level 

due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violation of 

section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the 

Property. In addition, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into 

the access aisle of the accessible parking space in violation of section 406.5 of 

the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This violation made it difficult and dangerous 

for Plaintiff to exit/enter their vehicle.

(vii) Near Unit 70, the accessible parking spaces are not level due to the 

presence of accessible ramp side flares in the accessible parking spaces in 

violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made 

it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while 

parked at the Property.

(viii) Due to the presence of multiple flights of stairs blocking the exterior 

accessible route, 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 9 of 15
10

(ix) Near Unit 92, the access aisle to the accessible parking space is not level 

due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violation of 

section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the 

Property. In addition, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into 

the access aisle of the accessible parking space in violation of section 406.5 of 

the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This violation made it difficult and dangerous 

for Plaintiff to exit/enter their vehicle.

(x) Near Unit 92, 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.

(xi) Near Unit 92, the Property has an accessible ramp leading from the 

accessible parking space to the accessible entrances with a slope exceeding 

1:12 in violation of section 405.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the 

Property. 

(xii) Near Unit 92, the accessible ramp side flares have a slope in excess of 1:10 

in violation of section 406.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation 

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

(xiii) Near Unit 110, the access aisle and the accessible parking space is not level 

due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle and the accessible 

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 10 of 15
11

parking space in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter 

their vehicle while parked at the Property.

(xiv) Near Unit 110, the accessible ramp side flares have a slope in excess of 

1:10 in violation of section 406.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the 

Property.

(xv) Near Unit 110, 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.

(xvi) Near Unit 110, there is an accessible parking space that has a cross-slope in 

excess of 1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and 

is not level. This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit 

and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property.

(xvii) Near Unit 125, the access aisle and the accessible parking spaces are not 

level due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle and the 

accessible parking spaces in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

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

and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property.

(xviii) Near Unit 125, 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 11 of 15
12

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

public features of the Property.

(xix) Near Unit 125, the Property has an accessible ramp leading from the 

accessible parking space to the accessible entrances with a slope exceeding 

1:12 in violation of section 405.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the 

Property. 

(xx) Near Unit 142, one of the accessible parking spaces has a slope in excess of 

1:48 in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and is not 

level. This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and 

enter their vehicle while parked at the Property.

(xxi) Near Unit 142, the access aisle to the accessible parking space is not level 

due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violation of 

section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it dangerous 

and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the 

Property. In addition, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into 

the access aisle of the accessible parking space in violation of section 406.5 of 

the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This violation made it difficult and dangerous 

for Plaintiff to exit/enter their vehicle.

(xxii) Near Unit 142, 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 12 of 15
13

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

public features of the Property.

(xxiii) Multiple units of the Property, including Unit 130, have a front door with 

improper hardware in violation of section 309.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

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

Property.

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

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

32. 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 Wing Daddy

and Property. 

33. Plaintiff requires an inspection of Wing Daddy and Property in order to 

determine all of the discriminatory conditions present at the Wing Daddy and Property in 

violation of the ADA. 

34. 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.

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

bring the Wing Daddy and Property into compliance with the ADA.

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

and dangerous conditions present at the Wing Daddy and Property is readily achievable 

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 13 of 15
14

because the nature and cost of the modifications are relatively low.

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

and dangerous conditions present at the Wing Daddy and Property is readily achievable 

because Defendants have the financial resources to make the necessary modifications.

38. Upon information and good faith belief, the Wing Daddy and Property have 

been altered since 2010.

39. 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.

40. 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 Defendant is required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and 

ADA violations that exist at the Wing Daddy and Property, including those alleged 

herein. 

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

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

detriment to Defendant.

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

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

44. 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 Defendant to 

modify the Wing Daddy and Property to the extent required by the ADA.

Case 5:20-cv-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 14 of 15
15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Wing Daddy in violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

(b) That the Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from 

continuing their discriminatory practices;

(c) That the Court issue an Order requiring Defendant to (i) remove the 

physical barriers to access and (ii) alter the subject Wing Daddy to make it 

readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the 

extent required by the ADA;

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

expenses and costs; and

(e) 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-00497-RBF Document 1 Filed 04/23/20 Page 15 of 15