1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

ALLEN KELSO §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00026-Z

Plaintiff §

§

VS. §

§

REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC. and §

THE JIM and SHARYN REID §

IRREVOCABLE TRUST §

§

Defendant §

FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO THE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

COMES NOW, Plaintiff ALLEN KELSO and brings this cause of action against 

REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC. (“REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE”) and THE 

JIM and SHARYN REID IRREVOCABLE TRUST (or “Defendants”). THE JIM and 

SHARYN REID IRREVOCABLE TRUST owns, controls, manages, and rents the real 

estate, property, and improvements in Amarillo, Texas where a business named REID'S 

APPLIANCE SERVICE operates. Mr. KELSO respectfully shows that the Defendant’s 

real estate, property, and improvements at the location are not accessible to individuals 

with mobility impairments and disabilities, in violation of federal law.

I. CLAIM

1. Mr. KELSO, a person with a physical disability and mobility impairments, 

brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

litigation expenses against Defendants for violations of Title III of the Americans with 

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 21
2

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181, et seq. (“ADA”), and its attendant regulations, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”). 

2. Defendants refused to provide Mr. KELSO and others similarly situated 

with sufficient ADA-compliant parking in the parking lot that serves REID'S 

APPLIANCE SERVICE. At the Amarillo location, there are no ADA-compliant Vanaccessible spaces on the shortest access route to the business. Additionally, several of the 

disabled parking spaces are missing signs.

Based on these facts, DEFENDANTS have denied Mr. KELSO the ability to 

enjoy the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations at 

REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1331 and §1343(a)(3) & (a)(4) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. 

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as the 

events complained of occurred in Amarillo, Texas where the REID'S APPLIANCE 

SERVICE business is located.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff ALLEN KELSO is an honorably discharged U.S. Army veteran 

who served as a military policeman in Germany. Mr. Kelso suffered a permanent 

disability as established by the Federal government and the Veteran’s Administration. 

Mr. Kelso has a disabled placard on his vehicle from the State of Texas. He is a 

“qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of ADA Title III.

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 22
3

6. Defendant THE JIM and SHARYN REID IRREVOCABLE TRUST

owns, manages, controls, and leases the improvements and building where the REID'S 

APPLIANCE SERVICE is situated. The address of REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE is 

906 S Georgia St, Amarillo, TX 79102. The business is a place of public accommodation, 

operated by a private entity, whose operations affect commerce within the meaning of 

Title III of the ADA. 

7. Defendant THE JIM and SHARYN REID IRREVOCABLE TRUST is the 

owner of the property. Defendant is a Texas Trust. Defendant can be served process via 

service to its Trustee: Sharyn Reid at 5614 SW 43rd Avenue, Amarillo, TX 79109-5202.

II. FACTS

8. REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE is a business establishment and place of 

public accommodation in Amarillo, Texas. REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE is situated 

on real estate, property, and improvements owned, controlled, managed, and leased out 

by REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC..

9. REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE is not accessible to disabled individuals 

because it has no ADA-compliant Van-accessible spaces on the shortest access route to 

the business. At the Amarillo location, there are none. In addition, several disabled 

parking signs are missing.

10. Pictures taken at the location prove this:

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 23
4

REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE business in Amarillo, TX. There is no ADA-Compliant 

Van Accessible space (96” wide with 96” side access aisle) near the business entrance on 

the shortest possible access route. In addition, several disabled parking signs are missing.

REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE business in Amarillo, TX. There is no ADA-Compliant 

Van Accessible space (96” wide with 96” side access aisle) near the business entrance on 

the shortest possible access route. In addition, several disabled parking signs are missing.

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 24
5

11. The Plaintiff went to REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE property in October 

of 2021. 

12. In encountering and dealing with the lack of an accessible facility, the 

Plaintiff experienced difficulty and discomfort. These violations denied Plaintiff the full 

and equal access to facilities, privileges and accommodations offered by the Defendant. 

Plaintiff intends to return to REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE. By not having an ADAcompliant parking area, the Plaintiff’s life is negatively affected because he is not able to 

safely access the location without fear of being struck by a vehicle. This causes the 

Plaintiff depression, discomfort, and emotional stress and the Plaintiff is prevented from 

resuming a normal lifestyle and enjoying access to businesses in his area.

13. Additionally, on information and belief, the Plaintiff alleges that the 

failure to remove the barrier was intentional because: (1) this particular barrier is intuitive 

and obvious; (2) the Defendant exercised control and dominion over the conditions at this 

location and, therefore, the lack of accessible facilities was not an “accident” because

Defendant intended this configuration; (3) Defendant has the means and ability to make 

the change; and (4) the changes to bring the property into compliance are “readily 

14. At the Amarillo location, there are no ADA-compliant Van-accessible 

spaces on the shortest access route to the business. In addition, several disabled parking 

signs are missing and the disabled spaces are located on the far side of the building, thus 

deterring Disabled patrons from accessing the business. 

15. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101, has been 

federal law for 30 years.

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 25
6

III. CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS 

WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101

16. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again 

herein, the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint. 

17. Under the ADA, it is an act of discrimination to fail to ensure that the 

privileges, advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods and services of any place of 

public accommodation is offered on a full and equal basis by anyone who owns, leases, 

or operates a place of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination 

is defined, inter alia, as follows: 

a. A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, 

or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with 

disabilities, unless the accommodation would work a fundamental alteration of 

those services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). 

b. A failure to remove architectural barriers where such removal is

readily achievable. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2) (A)(iv). Barriers are defined by 

reference to the ADAAG, found at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix “D.”

c. A failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the

maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible 

to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use 

wheelchairs or to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to 

the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the 

altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 

42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2).

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 26
7

18. Here, the Defendant did not provide a sufficient number of ADAcompliant parking spaces in its parking lot, although doing so is easily and readily done, 

and therefore violated the ADA. 

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED

Injunctive Relief

19. Mr. KELSO will continue to experience unlawful discrimination as a 

result of the Defendant’s refusal to comply with the ADA. Injunctive relief is necessary 

so he and all individuals with disabilities can access the Defendant’s property equally, as 

required by law, and to compel Defendant to repave and restripe the parking lot to 

comply with the ADA. Injunctive relief is also necessary to compel Defendant to keep 

the property in compliance with federal law.

Declaratory Relief

20. Mr. KELSO is entitled to declaratory judgment concerning Defendant’s 

violations of law, specifying the rights of individuals with disabilities to access the goods 

and services at the Defendant’s location.

21. The facts are undisputed and Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA 

has been proven through on-site photographs. Plaintiff proves a prima facie case of ADA 

violations by the Defendant.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

22. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and court 

costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205.

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 27
8

V. PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING

23. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is clear with 

regard to ADA standing and set forth its reasoning in Frame v. Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 

(5th Cir. 2011)(cert. denied), “Article III standing requires a plaintiff seeking injunctive 

relief to allege ‘actual or imminent’ and not merely ‘conjectural or hypothetical’ injury.”

24. In this manner, the Fifth Circuit ruled in Frame that for a person to have 

standing and bring an ADA claim, the person must allege the inability to access the 

goods, facilities, and services that the defendant offers. As applied to the instant case, the 

Plaintiff alleges that he is unable to fully access the goods, facilities, and services at the 

Defendant’s property because the property is not accessible and is not ADA-compliant. 

The Plaintiff lives in the Amarillo area, has visited the Defendant’s property, has the 

intent to return, but was ‘deterred from visiting or patronizing the accommodation,’ thus 

meeting the requirements for standing in Frame.

25. Again, the Fifth Circuit emphasizes how standing is met by ADA 

claimants: “Once a plaintiff has actually become aware of discriminatory conditions 

existing at a public accommodation, the plaintiff has suffered an injury.” See Frame v. 

Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011)(cert. denied), quoting Pickern v. Holiday Foods 

Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2002). Thereby, Plaintiff meets the Fifth Circuit 

standard under Frame to allege and plead a sufficient cause of action.

26. Plaintiff also alleges that his day-to-day life has been negatively impacted 

by the Defendant’s refusal to bring the property into ADA compliance. Thus, Plaintiff 

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 28
9

meets the second prong of the Fifth Circuit’s requirement for standing in ADA cases: a) 

intent to return; and b) negative impact on day-to-day life. See Frame v. Arlington, supra.

27. The parking layout at Defendant’s location creates a hazardous condition 

because: 1) there are no Van-Accessible spaces and a customer cannot safely exit their 

vehicle and remove their mobility aids (cane, walker or wheelchair); 2) there are no 

disabled / handicapped spaces whatsoever, thus forcing disabled customers to park far 

from the store entrance; and 3) lack of markings / proper signage which allow vehicles to 

park everywhere, thus creating the likelihood that the Plaintiff could be injured by 

another vehicle as Plaintiff is offloading mobility assistance devices (cane, walker, 

wheelchair, etc.) These conditions make it appear that Plaintiff is unwelcome at 

Defendant’s property. Thus, the Plaintiff is deterred from accessing REID'S 

APPLIANCE SERVICE and meets the pleading standard under Frame to show standing 

and seek injunctive relief.

28. Intent to Return. Plaintiff has the intent to return to REID'S APPLIANCE 

SERVICE. The Plaintiff is a resident of Amarillo and shops locally. The Plaintiff 

believes it is beneficial to shop locally to save money and provide for the well-being of 

his family. Not having access to local businesses (because of his disability) negatively 

impacts the Plaintiff’s daily life. Not being able to patronize local shops and stores 

negatively impacts Plaintiff in his day-to-day life. 

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

THEREFORE, Mr. KELSO respectfully requests this Court award the following 

relief:

A. A permanent injunction, compelling Defendant to comply with the 

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 29
10

Americans with Disabilities Act; and enjoining Defendant from violating the ADA and 

from discriminating against Mr. KELSO and those similarly situated, in violation of the 

law;

B. A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s actions are a violation of the 

ADA;

C. Find that Mr. KELSO is the prevailing party in this action, and order 

Defendant liable for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses; and,

D. Grant such other and additional relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled in 

this action.

DATED: April 26, 2022

Respectfully,

By: /s/ R. Bruce Tharpe

R. Bruce Tharpe

LAW OFFICE OF 

R. BRUCE THARPE, PLLC

PO Box 101

Olmito, TX 78575

(956) 255-5111 (Tel)

(866) 599-2596 (Fax)

Email: rbtharpe@aol.com

Questions@BruceTharpeLaw.com

ATTORNEY IN CHARGE

/s/ James A Besselman

James A. Besselman, PC 

301 South Polk 

Suite 640N 

Amarillo, TX 79101 

806/331-0365 

Fax: 806/376-8552 

Email: jimbesselmanlaw@gmail.com 

LOCAL COUNSEL

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 30