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-624

RAY RONDEL & MICAH RONDEL )

d/b/a SENECA PLAZA, ) 

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

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

files this, his Complaint against Defendants RAY RONDEL & MICAH RONDEL d/b/a 

SENECA PLAZA, 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 

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

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 18
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. Defendants RAY RONDEL and MICAH RONDEL d/b/a SENECA 

PLAZA (hereinafter “Seneca Plaza”) are two individual Texas residents operating a for 

profit retail “strip mall” that transacts business in the state of Texas and within this 

judicial district. 

8. Seneca Plaza may be properly served with process at the following 

location: Ray Rondel and Micah Rondel, 6504 Bandera Road, San Antonio, Texas 78238.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 18
3

9. On or about December 27, 2019, Plaintiff was a customer at “Social Cutz,” 

a business located at 6515 Bandera Road, San Antonio, Texas 78238, referenced herein 

as “Social Cutz.” 

10. Seneca Plaza is the owner or co-owner of the real property and 

improvements that the Social Cutz are situated upon and that is the subject of this action, 

referenced herein as the “Property.” 

11. Plaintiff lives approximately 7 miles from the Social Cutz and Property.

12. Plaintiff’s access to the business(es) located at 6515 Bandera Road, San 

Antonio, Bexar County Property Identification number 448138 (“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 

Defendants are compelled to remove the physical barriers to access and correct the ADA 

violations that exist at the Social Cutz, 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 Social Cutz and Property to purchase goods 

and/or services.

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 18
4

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

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

Cutz 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 Social Cutz 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-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 18
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 Social Cutz 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-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 18
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 Social Cutz 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

Social Cutz and the Property in his capacity as a customer of the Social Cutz 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 Social Cutz and Property that preclude 

and/or limit his access to the Social Cutz 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 Social Cutz 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 Social Cutz 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-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 18
7

violations that exist at the Social Cutz and Property that preclude and/or limit his access 

to the Social Cutz 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. 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 Social Cutz 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. 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 Social Cutz and Property, including those specifically set forth herein, and 

make the Social Cutz 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 Social Cutz and Property and the full and equal 

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

of the Social Cutz and Property include, but are not limited to:

(a) ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

(i) Near Unit 6515, 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 18
8

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. 

(ii) Near Unit 6515, 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 Unit 6555, 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. 

(iv) Near Unit 6555, 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.

(v) The accessible parking space adjacent to Unit 6555 has vertical rises in excess 

of 1⁄4 inch in height and is in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

Standards. This violation would make it difficult for Plaintiff to traverse the 

accessible parking space.

(vi) The maneuvering clearance serving the accessible entrance to Unit 6555 is 

not level in violation of section 404.2.4.4 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. 

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 18
9

This violation would make it difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to enter this 

Unit.

(vii) Near Unit 6515, 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.

(viii) For multiple units of the property, including Units 6521, 6523, 6525, 6527 

and 6529, the doorway of the accessible entrance is not level in violation of 

section 404.2.4.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it 

difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(ix) 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. Specifically, due to the 

presence of stairs along the accessible route between Units 6529 and 6531, the 

Property lacks an accessible route. This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff 

to access public features of the Property.

(x) Near Unit 6533, 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.

(xi) Near Unit 6533, 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 18
10

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

Property. 

(xii) Near Unit 6533, 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.

(xiii) Near Unit 6533, 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.

(xiv) Near Unit 6541, 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. 

(xv) Near Unit 6541, 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.

(xvi) Near Unit 6541, 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 18
11

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

Property.

(xvii) Near Unit 6541, the accessible parking space sign is not at the proper height 

in violation of section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation 

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

(xviii) The Property lacks an 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. Specifically, due to the 

presence of stairs along the accessible route near Unit 6553, the Property lacks 

an accessible route. This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to access 

public features of the Property.

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

all facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled Unit 6515, 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. 

(xx) Near Unit 6515, 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 18
12

(xxi) Near Unit 6555, 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. 

(xxii) Near Unit 6555, 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.

(xxiii) The accessible parking space adjacent to Unit 6555 has vertical rises in 

excess of 1⁄4 inch in height and is in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 

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

traverse the accessible parking space.

(xxiv) The maneuvering clearance serving the accessible entrance to Unit 6555 is 

not level in violation of section 404.2.4.4 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. 

This violation would make it difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to enter this 

Unit.

(xxv) Near Unit 6515, 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 18
13

(xxvi) For multiple units of the property, including Units 6521, 6523, 6525, 6527 

and 6529, the doorway of the accessible entrance is not level in violation of 

section 404.2.4.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation made it 

difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(xxvii)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. Specifically, due to the 

presence of stairs along the accessible route between Units 6529 and 6531, the 

Property lacks an accessible route. This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff 

to access public features of the Property.

(xxviii) Near Unit 6533, 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.

(xxix) Near Unit 6533, 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. 

(xxx) Near Unit 6533, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the 

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

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 18
14

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

Plaintiff to exit/enter their vehicle.

(xxxi) Near Unit 6533, 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.

(xxxii)Near Unit 6541, 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. 

(xxxiii) Near Unit 6541, 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.

(xxxiv) Near Unit 6541, 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-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 18
15

(xxxv)Near Unit 6541, the accessible parking space sign is not at the proper height 

in violation of section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation 

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

(xxxvi) The Property lacks an 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. Specifically, due 

to the presence of stairs along the accessible route near Unit 6553, the Property 

lacks an accessible route. This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to access 

public features of the Property.

(xxxvii) 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 Social Cutz

and Property. 

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

determine all of the discriminatory conditions present at the Social Cutz 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 18
16

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

bring the Social Cutz 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 Social Cutz 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 Social Cutz and Property is readily achievable 

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

38. Upon information and good faith belief, the Social Cutz 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 Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and 

ADA violations that exist at the Social Cutz 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 Defendants.

43. 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 18
17

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 Defendants to 

modify the Social Cutz and Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find the Social Cutz in violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

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

continuing their discriminatory practices;

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

physical barriers to access and (ii) alter the subject Social Cutz to make 

them 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

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 18
18

Email: dennis@kurzlawgroup.com 

Case 5:20-cv-00624 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 18