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-621

THREE STAR HERITAGE, L.P., ) 

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

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

files this, his Complaint against Defendant THREE STAR HERITAGE, L.P., 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-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 12
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 THREE STAR HERITAGE, L.P. (hereinafter “3-Star”), is a 

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

judicial district. 

8. 3-Star may be properly served with process via its registered agent for 

service, to wit: Sherali Ali, 3500 Broadway, San Antonio, Texas 78209.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On or about January 3, 2020, Plaintiff was a customer at “Exxon Three Star 

Mart” a business located at 4301 Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, Texas 78201, 

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 12
3

referenced herein as the “the Mart.” 

10. 3-Star is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that 

the Mart is situated upon and that is the subject of this action, referenced herein as the 

“Property.” 

11. Plaintiff lives approximately 7 miles from the Mart and Property.

12. Plaintiff’s access to the business(es) located at 4301 Fredericksburg Road, 

San Antonio, Bexar County Property Identification number 355002 (“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 Mart 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 Mart and Property to purchase goods and/or 

services.

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

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 12
4

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

(v) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination 

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 12
5

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 Mart 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 

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

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 12
6

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 Mart 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 Mart

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

Mart 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 Mart 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 Mart 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 Mart and Property that preclude and/or limit his access to the Mart and 

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

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 12
7

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 Mart 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 Mart and Property, including those specifically set forth herein, and make the 

Mart 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 Mart and Property and the full and equal enjoyment of the 

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

Property include, but are not limited to:

(a) ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

(i) 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. 

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 12
8

(ii) 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) The accessible parking space has an improper height as the bottom edge of 

the sign is less than 60 inches from the finished floor in violation of section 

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

Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking space.

(iv) The interior has walking surfaces lacking a 36 (thirty-six) inch clear width, 

due to a policy of placing items in the accessible route and maximizing product 

placement density inside the store at the expense of accessibility, in violation 

of section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it 

difficult for Plaintiff to properly utilize public features at the Property.

(v) 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) RESTROOMS

(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.

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 12
9

(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.

(iv) The controls on the faucets require pinching and turning of the wrists in 

violation of section 309.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This made it 

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

facilities.

(v) 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.

(vi) 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.

(vi) The restroom has a recessed floor drain that creates an excessive vertical 

rise in violation of section 303.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation 

made it dangerous and 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, 

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 12
10

conditions or violations encountered by Plaintiff and/or which exist at the Mart and 

Property. 

33. Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Mart and Property in order to 

determine all of the discriminatory conditions present at the Mart 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 Mart 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 Mart 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 Mart and Property is readily achievable because 

Defendants have the financial resources to make the necessary modifications.

38. Upon information and good faith belief, the Mart 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 12
11

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 Mart 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 Mart and Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find the Mart 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 Mart 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

Case 5:20-cv-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 12
12

(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-00621 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 12