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-622

5545 NW LOOP, LTD, ) 

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

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

files this, his Complaint against Defendant 5545 NW LOOP, LTD, 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

(Bexar County).

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 13
2

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 5545 NW LOOP, LTD (hereinafter “5545 NW LOOP”) is a 

Texas for profit corporation that transacts business in the state of Texas and within this 

judicial district. 

8. 5545 NW LOOP may be properly served with process via its registered 

agent for service, to wit: William Spencer, 5825 Callaghan Road, Suite 101, San Antonio, 

Texas 78228.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On or about December 27, 2019, Plaintiff was a customer at “Jalisco Es 

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 13
3

Mexicano” a business located at 5545 Northwest Loop 410, Suite 110, San Antonio, 

Texas 78238, referenced herein as the “Gran Jalisco.” 

10. 5545 NW LOOP is the owner or co-owner of the real property and 

improvements that the Gran Jalisco is situated upon and that is the subject of this action, 

referenced herein as the “Property.” 

11. Plaintiff lives approximately 7 miles from the Gran Jalisco and Property.

12. Plaintiff’s access to the business(es) located at 5545 Northwest Loop 410, 

San Antonio, Bexar County Property Identification number 533703 (“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 Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco and Property to purchase goods 

and/or services.

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 13
4

15. Plaintiff travelled to the Gran Jalisco and Property as a customer and as an 

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

Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco 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 

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

opportunities; and

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 13
5

(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 Gran Jalisco is a public accommodation and service establishment.

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

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

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 13
6

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 Gran Jalisco 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 Gran 

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

to the Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco 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

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 13
7

violations that exist at the Gran Jalisco and Property that preclude and/or limit his access 

to the Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco and Property, including those specifically set forth herein, and 

make the Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco and Property and the full and equal 

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

of the Gran Jalisco and Property include, but are not limited to:

(a) ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

(i) Near Subway (Unit 118), the accessible parking space and associated access 

aisle have a slope in excess of 1:48, and is actually closer to 1:12, in violation 

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 13
8

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.

(ii) Near Subway (Unit 118), 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. 

(iii) Near Subway (Unit 118), the accessible ramp leading to the accessible 

entrances has a rise greater than 6 (six) inches but does not have handrails 

complying with section 505 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, this is a violation 

of section 405.8 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it 

difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(iv) Near Subway (Unit 118), there is an excessive vertical rise at the base 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.

(v) Near Unit 108, the accessible parking space and associated access aisle have a 

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-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 13
9

(vi) Near Unit 108, the ground surfaces of the access aisle have vertical rises in 

excess of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have 

broken or unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section 302, 303 

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

and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(vii) At Unit 103, there is a doorway threshold with a vertical rise in excess of 1⁄2 

(one half) inch and does not contain a bevel with a maximum slope of 1:2 in 

violation of section 404.2.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation 

made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the interior of the 

Property.

(viii) Near Unit 101, the accessible parking space and associated access aisle 

have a cross-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.

(ix) The access aisle serving the accessible parking space near Unit 101 is not at 

the same level as the parking space it serves in violation of section 502.4 of the 

2010 ADAAG Standards. This violation would make it difficult for Plaintiff to 

exit and enter his vehicle if parked at that accessible parking space.

(x) Inside Gran Jalisco, there are sales and services counters 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 13
10

portions of the sales and service 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.

(xi) The total number of accessible parking spaces is inadequate and is in 

violation of section 208.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. There are a total of 

143 parking spaces on the Property requiring at least 5 accessible parking 

spaces, but there are only three accessible parking spaces on the Property. This 

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

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

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

(b) GRAN JALISCO RESTROOMS

(i) The accessible toilet stall door is not self-closing and violates section 604.8.2.1 

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

any disabled individual to safely utilize the restroom facilities. 

(ii) 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.

(iii) The mirror in the bathrooms exceeds the maximum height permitted by 

Section 603.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it difficult 

for the Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to properly utilize public 

features of the restroom.

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 13
11

(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.

(xiii) The door exiting the restroom lacks a proper minimum maneuvering 

clearance, due to the proximity of the door hardware to the adjacent stall 

partition, in violation of section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

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

restroom 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 Gran Jalisco

and Property. 

33. Plaintiff requires an inspection of Gran Jalisco and Property in order to 

determine all of the discriminatory conditions present at the Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco and Property into compliance with the ADA.

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

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 13
12

and dangerous conditions present at the Gran Jalisco and Property is readily achievable 

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 Gran Jalisco and Property is readily achievable 

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

38. Upon information and good faith belief, the Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 13
13

modify the Gran Jalisco and Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Gran Jalisco 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 Gran Jalisco 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: May 26, 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-00622 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 13