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-623

GRANDVIEW HOLDING, LLC, d/b/a )

GRANDVIEW SHOPPING CENTER )

TWO, LLC, ) 

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

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

files this, his Complaint against Defendant GRANDVIEW HOLDING, LLC, d/b/a 

GRANDVIEW SHOPPING CENTER TWO, LLC, 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 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 GRANDVIEW HOLDING, LLC d/b/a GRANDVIEW 

SHOPPING CENTER TWO, LLC (hereinafter “Grandview”) is a Texas limited liability 

company that transacts business in the state of Texas and within this judicial district. 

8. GRANDVIEW may be properly served with process via its registered agent 

for service, to wit: Paracorp Incorporated, 3610-2 N. Josey Lane, Suite 223, Carrollton,

Texas 75007.

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 15
3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On or about May 30, 2019, Plaintiff was a customer at “Las Palapas” a 

business located at 8005 Callahan Road, San Antonio, Texas 78230, referenced herein as 

the “Las Palapas.” 

10. Grandview is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements

that the Las Palapas is situated upon and that is the subject of this action, referenced 

herein as the “Property.” 

11. Plaintiff lives approximately 7 miles from the Las Palapas and Property.

12. Plaintiff’s access to the business(es) located at 8005 Callahan Road, San 

Antonio, Bexar County Property Identification number 488312 (“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 Las Palapas 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 15
4

14. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Las Palapas and Property to purchase goods 

and/or services.

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

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

Palapas 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 Las Palapas 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 15
5

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).

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 Las Palapas is a public accommodation and service establishment.

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 15
6

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 

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 Las Palapas 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 Las 

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

to the Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas and Property

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 15
7

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 Las Palapas and Property that preclude and/or limit his access 

to the Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas and Property, including those specifically set forth herein, and 

make the Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas and Property and the full and equal 

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

of the Las Palapas and Property include, but are not limited to:

(a) ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 15
8

(i) 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.

(ii) Accessible parking spaces have an access aisle with 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.

(iii) The access aisle and the accessible parking space are not level due to the 

presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle and the accessible 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.

(iv) 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. 

(v) The ground surfaces of the accessible ramp 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 405.4 

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-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 15
9

(vi) There are changes in level at Property exceeding 1⁄2 (one-half) inch that are 

not properly ramped in violation of section 303.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. Specifically, there is an approximately 2 (two) inch vertical rise at 

the entrance to Las Palpas, thus rendering the interior of Las Palpas 

inaccessible. This violation made it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to 

access the units of the Property.

(vii) There is a doorway at Las Palpas 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) The doorway of the accessible entrance of Las Palpas 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) Due to the accessible barrier present at the accessible entrance of Las 

Palpas, the accessible entrance of the Property lacks at least one accessible 

route provided within the site to the public streets and sidewalks in violation of 

section 206.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards.

(x) The Property lacks signage identified by the International Symbol of 

Accessibility that indicates the location of the nearest entrance complying with 

section 404 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, if such an entrance exists. This 

policy decision by Defendant(s) violates section 216.6 of the 2010 ADAAG 

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 15
10

Standards. This violation made it difficult for Plaintiff to find an accessible 

entrance.

(xi) The Property lacks an access route from site arrival points such as the 

public streets and sidewalks to the accessible entrance of Las Palpas in 

violation of section 206.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards.

(xii) There is not at least one accessible entrance to each tenant space in the 

building that complies with section 404 of the 2010 ADAAG standards which 

is a violation of section 206.4.5 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards.

(xiii) The to-go/take-out counter of Las Palpas lacks 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.

(xiv) Due to the policy of the operator/tenant of Las Palpas as to where to place 

tables and chairs in the restaurant, the interior has walking surfaces leading to 

the restrooms 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.

(xv) 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 AT LAS PALPAS

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 15
11

(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 door to the restrooms has a maximum clear width below 32 (thirty-two) 

inches in violation of section 404.2.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

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

restroom facilities.

(iii) 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.

(iv) The soap 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 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.

(vi) 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-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 15
12

(vii) Restrooms have a pedestal sink with inadequate knee and toe clearance in 

violation of section 306 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This made it difficult 

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

facilities.

(viii) 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 

missing and the side bar is too short (below 42 inches) and is not properly

positioned as it is more than 12 inches from the back wall. This made it 

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

restroom facilities.

(ix) The distance of the centerline of the toilet is not adequately positioned from 

the side wall or partition positioning in violation of 604.2 of the 2010 ADAAG 

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

safely utilize the restroom facilities.

(xvi) The door exiting the restroom lacks a clear minimum maneuvering 

clearance, due to the proximity of the door hardware to the adjacent wall, 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 Las Palapas

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 15
13

and Property. 

33. Plaintiff requires an inspection of Las Palapas and Property in order to 

determine all of the discriminatory conditions present at the Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas and Property is readily achievable 

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

38. Upon information and good faith belief, the Las Palapas 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, 

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 15
14

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 Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas and Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Las Palapas 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 Las Palapas 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 15
15

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-00623 Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 15