Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

RAFAEL SEGOVIA,

an individual,

PLAINTIFF,

v. 

AHNS GROUP, INC., 

a domestic corporation, 

 DEFENDANT.

*

*

*

*

* 

* Case No. 3:22-cv-535

*

*

*

*

*

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff RAFAEL SEGOVIA (“Segovia” or “Plaintiff”) hereby sues 

Defendant, AHNS GROUP, INC., a domestic corporation, (hereinafter 

“Defendant”) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et 

seq. (“ADA”), and its implementing regulations, the ADA’s Accessibility 

Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36 (“ADAAG”) and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title 

III of the ADA. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction over the action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1
Page 2 of 16

§ 12181 et seq., based upon Defendant’s, AHNS GROUP, INC.’s, failure to remove 

physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the ADA.

2. Venue is properly located in the Northern District of Texas in the Dallas 

Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because venue lies in the judicial district 

of the property situs or the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events 

or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred. The Defendant’s property is 

located in and does business within this judicial district and all events giving rise to 

this lawsuit occurred in this judicial district.

3. Plaintiff, RAFAEL SEGOVIA, is and has been at all times relevant to 

the instant matter, a natural person residing in Texas and is sui juris. 

4. Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA.

5. Plaintiff is substantially limited in performing one or more major life 

activities, including but not limited to: walking and standing. 

6. Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 

7. Plaintiff is also an independent advocate of the rights of similarly 

situated disabled persons and is a “tester” for the purpose of enforcing Plaintiff’s 

civil rights, monitoring, determining and ensuring whether places of public 

accommodation are in compliance with the ADA. Plaintiff’s motivation to return to 

a location, in part, stems from a desire to utilize ADA litigation to make his home 

community more accessible for Plaintiff and others; and pledges to do whatever is 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 16 PageID 2
Page 3 of 16

necessary to create the requisite standing to confer jurisdiction upon this Court so an 

injunction can be issued correcting the numerous ADA violations on the Subject 

Property, including returning to the Subject Property as soon as it is accessible 

(“Advocacy Purposes”).

8. Defendant, AHNS GROUP, INC., is a domestic corporation conducting 

business in the State of Texas and within this judicial district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On or about December of 2021, Plaintiff attempted to but was deterred 

from patronizing and/or gaining equal access as a disabled patron to the Tailor J's 

Cleaners located at 2904 Oak Lawn Ave, Dallas, TX 75219 (“Subject Facility”, 

“Subject Property”).

10. AHNS GROUP, INC., is the owner, lessor, and/or operator/lessee of 

the real property and improvements that are the subject of this action, specifically 

the Strip Mall and its attendant facilities, including vehicular parking and common 

exterior paths of travel within the site identified by the Dallas County Assessor 

parcel identification number 138736000000 (“Subject Facility”, “Subject 

Property”).

11. Plaintiff lives within thirty (30) miles of the Subject Property. Because 

the Subject Property is located on Oak Lawn, a Dallas County thoroughfare that he

frequents routinely, he is routinely where the Subject Property is located and travels 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 16 PageID 3
Page 4 of 16

in and about the immediate area of the Subject Property numerous times every 

month, if not every week.

12. Plaintiff’s access to the Subject Property and/or full and equal 

enjoyment of the goods, services, 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, AHNS GROUP, INC., is compelled to remove the physical barriers to 

access and correct the ADA violations that exist at the Subject Property, including 

those set forth in this Complaint.

13. Plaintiff has visited, i.e. attempted to patronize, the Subject Property on 

multiple prior occasions, and at least once before as a patron and advocate for the 

disabled. Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Subject Property within six months of the 

filing of this Complaint or sooner, as soon as the barriers to access detailed in this 

Complaint are removed. The purpose of the revisit is to be a regular patron, to 

determine if and when the Subject Property is made accessible, and to maintain 

standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. 

14. Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Subject Property to enjoy the same

experiences, goods, and services available to Defendant’s non-disabled patron as 

well as for Advocacy Purposes, but does not intend to continue to repeatedly reexpose himself to the ongoing barriers to equal access and engage in the futile 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 16 PageID 4
Page 5 of 16

gesture of attempting to patronize the Subject Property, a business of public 

accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to 

equal access for wheelchair users. 

15. Plaintiff recently traveled to the Subject Property as a patron and as an 

independent advocate for the disabled, encountered and/or observed the barriers to 

access that are detailed in this Complaint, engaged those barriers where physically 

possible, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will continue to suffer such harm 

and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to equal access present at the Subject 

Property.

COUNT I – CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Against Defendant for ADA Violations)

16. 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).

17. The Subject Property is a public accommodation and service 

establishment.

18. 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.

19. 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 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 5 of 16 PageID 5
Page 6 of 16

employees and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; 28 

C.F.R. § 36.508(a).

20. The Subject Property must be, but is not, in compliance with the ADA 

and the ADAAG.

21. Plaintiff has attempted to, and has to the extent possible, accessed the 

Subject Property in his capacity as a patron at the Subject 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 Subject Property that preclude and/or limit his 

access to the Subject 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.

22. Plaintiff intends to visit the Subject Property again in the very near 

future as a patron and as an independent advocate for the disabled, in order to utilize 

all of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations 

commonly offered to able-bodied patrons of the Subject Property 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 Subject Property that preclude 

and/or limit his access to the Subject Property and/or the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein, including those 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 6 of 16 PageID 6
Page 7 of 16

barriers, conditions and ADA violations more specifically set forth in this 

Complaint.

23. Defendant, AHNS GROUP, INC., 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 Subject Property, as prohibited by, and by failing to remove architectural 

barriers as required by, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

24. Defendant, AHNS GROUP, INC., will continue to discriminate against 

Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until AHNS GROUP, INC., is 

compelled to remove all physical barriers that exist at the Subject Property, 

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

accessible to and usable by Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities.

25. 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 Subject Property and the full and equal enjoyment 

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

Subject Property include, but are not limited to:

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 7 of 16 PageID 7
Page 8 of 16

ACCESSIBLE ROUTES/PARKING

(Exterior)

a. There is no van accessible parking present in violation 

of Section 4.6 of the 1991 ADAAG and Section 502 of 

the 2010 ADAAG. This violation made it dangerous 

Plaintiff to utilize the parking facility at the Subject 

Property and caused loss of opportunity.

b. There is no van accessible parking identified as such 

with upright “Van Accessible” signage in violation of 

Section 4.6 of the 1991 ADAAG and Sections 208, 302 

and 502 of the 2010 ADAAG. These violations made 

it dangerous for Plaintiff to utilize the parking facility 

at the Subject Property and caused Plaintiff loss of 

opportunity.

c. The visible upright signage (displaying the 

International Symbol of Accessibility) designating 

parking spaces as accessible is mounted too low in 

violation of Section 4.6 of the 1991 ADAAG and 

Section 502 of the 2010 ADAAG. These violations 

made it dangerous for Plaintiff to utilize the parking 

facility at the Subject Property and caused Plaintiff loss 

of opportunity.

d. There is broken and cracked pavement within the 

purported accessible route from the entrance of the 

subject facility to the public sidewalk in violation of 

Section 4.3.2 of the 1991 ADAAG and Section 206.2.1 

of the 2010 ADAAG. These violations made it 

dangerous for Plaintiff to utilize the parking facility at 

the Subject Property and caused Plaintiff loss of 

opportunity.

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 8 of 16 PageID 8
Page 9 of 16

e. The designated accessible parking spaces are not 

located on the shortest accessible route from parking to 

the accessible entrance in violation of Section 4.6 of the 

1991 ADAAG and Sections 208.3.1 and 502 of the 

2010 ADAAG. These violations made it dangerous for 

Plaintiff to utilize the parking facility at the Subject 

Property and caused Plaintiff loss of opportunity.

f. The paint delineating the accessible parking spaces and 

access aisles is not being maintained so that it clearly 

marks the accessible parking location in violation of 28 

CFR § 36.211, Section 4.6 of the 1991 ADAAG, and 

Section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG. These violations 

made it dangerous for Plaintiff to utilize the parking 

facility at the Subject Property and caused Plaintiff loss 

of opportunity.

g. The plaintiff could not access the 24-hour drop off 

independently as it was mounted too high to reach. 

Violation: The 24-hour drop off is mounted at a 

noncompliant height in violation of the minimum reach 

ranges set forth in Section 4.2.5 and Figure 5 of the 

1991 ADAAG and Section 308.3 of the 2010 ADAAG. 

These violations made it dangerous for Plaintiff to 

utilize the parking facility at the Subject Property and 

caused Plaintiff loss of opportunity.

MAINTENANCE PRACTICES

h. Defendant has a practice of failing to maintain the 

accessible features of the facility, creating barriers to 

access for the Plaintiff, as set forth herein, in violation 

of 28 CFR § 36.211. This practice prevented access to 

the plaintiff equal to that of Defendant’s able-bodied 

customers causing Plaintiff loss of opportunity.

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 9 of 16 PageID 9
Page 10 of 16

i. Defendant has a practice of failing to maintain the 

accessible elements at the Subject Facility by 

neglecting its continuing duty to review, inspect, and 

discover transient accessible elements which by the 

nature of their design or placement, frequency of usage, 

exposure to weather and/or other factors, are prone to 

shift from compliant to noncompliant so that said 

elements may be discovered and remediated. 

Defendant failed and continues to fail to alter its 

inadequate maintenance practices to prevent future 

recurrence of noncompliance with dynamic accessible 

elements at the Subject Facility in violation of 28 CFR 

§ 36.211, the 1991 ADAAG, and the 2010 ADAAG. 

These violations, as set forth hereinabove, made it 

impossible for Plaintiff to experience the same access 

to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages 

and accommodations of the Subject Facility as 

Defendant’s able-bodied patrons and caused Plaintiff 

loss of opportunity.

j. Defendant has failed to modify its discriminatory 

maintenance practices to ensure that, pursuant to its 

continuing duty under the ADA, the Subject Property 

remains readily accessible to and usable by disabled 

individuals, including Plaintiff, as set forth herein, in 

violation of 28 CFR § 36.302 and 36.211. This failure 

by Defendant prevented access to the plaintiff equal to 

that of Defendant’s able-bodied customers causing 

Plaintiff loss of opportunity.

26. The discriminatory violations described above are not an exhaustive list 

of the Defendant’s current barriers to equal access and violations of the ADA 

because Plaintiff was unable to access and assess all areas of the subject premises 

due to the architectural barriers encountered. A complete list of the subject location’s 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 10 of 16 PageID 10
Page 11 of 16

ADA violations affecting the Plaintiff as a wheelchair user, and the remedial 

measures necessary to remove same, will require an on-site inspection by Plaintiff’s 

representatives pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Once the Plaintiff 

personally encounters discrimination, as alleged above, or learns of discriminatory 

violations through expert findings of personal observation, he has actual notice that 

the defendant does not intend to comply with the ADA. 

27. The Defendant has a practice of failing to maintain the accessible 

elements at the Subject Property by neglecting its continuing duty to review, inspect, 

and discover transient accessible elements which by the nature of its design or 

placement, frequency of usage, exposure to weather and/or other factors, are prone 

to shift from compliant to noncompliant, so that said elements are discovered and 

remediated. Defendant failed and continues to fail to alter its inadequate 

maintenance practices to prevent future recurrence of noncompliance with dynamic 

accessible elements at the Subject Property in violation of 28 CFR §§ 36.202 and 

36.211. These violations, as referenced hereinabove, made it impossible for Plaintiff, 

as a wheelchair user, to experience the same access to the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and accommodations of the Subject Property as Defendant’s 

able-bodied patrons.

28. Accessible elements at the Subject Property have been altered and/or 

constructed since 2010. 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 11 of 16 PageID 11
Page 12 of 16

29. The foregoing violations are violations of the 1991 ADAAG, and the 

2010 ADAAG, as adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice. 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.

30. 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. 

31. Each of the violations alleged herein is readily achievable to modify to 

bring the Subject Property into compliance with the ADA.

32. Removal of the physical barriers and dangerous conditions present at 

the Subject Property is readily achievable because of the site conditions at the 

Subject Property, the structural design of the subject facility, and the straightforward 

nature of the necessary modifications. 

33. To assist businesses in offsetting the costs associated with complying 

with the ADA and removing barriers to access for individuals with disabilities, 

Section 44 of the IRS Code provides a tax credit for small business owners, and 

Section 190 of the IRS Code provides a tax deduction for all business owners, 

including the Defendant. 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 12 of 16 PageID 12
Page 13 of 16

34. Removal of the physical barriers and dangerous conditions at the 

Subject Property is readily achievable because of the relative low cost of the 

necessary modifications and the Defendant has the financial resources to make the 

modifications, including the financial assistance made available to Defendant by the 

government pursuant to Section 44 and/or Section 190 of the IRS Code.

35. By continuing to maintain and/or operate the Subject Property with 

discriminatory conditions in violation of the ADA, Defendant contributes to 

Plaintiff’s sense of isolation and segregation and deprives Plaintiff of the full and 

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

available to able bodied individuals of the general public. 

36. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to 

the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for its places of 

public accommodation that have existed prior to January 26, 1992, 28 CFR 

36.304(a); additionally, if there has been an alteration to Defendant’s place of public 

accommodation since January 26, 1992, then Defendant is required to ensure to the 

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

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

wheelchairs, 28 CFR 36.402; and finally, if the Defendant’s facilities were designed 

and constructed for first occupancy subsequent to January 26, 1993, as defined in 28 

CFR 36.401, then the Defendant’s facilities must be readily accessible to and useable 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 13 of 16 PageID 13
Page 14 of 16

by individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA. To date, Defendant has failed 

to comply with this mandate.

37. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable 

harm and reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm 

unless and until Defendant, AHNS GROUP, INC., is required to remove the physical 

barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations that exist at the Subject Property, 

including those alleged herein. Considering the balance of hardships between the 

Plaintiff and Defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted. 

38. Plaintiff’s requested relief serves the public interest. 

39. Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs of litigation from Defendant, AHNS GROUP, INC., pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12188, 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505. Plaintiff will be denied full and equal access 

to the subject premises, as provided by the ADA unless the injunctive relief 

requested herein is granted.

40. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is vested with the authority 

to grant Plaintiff injunctive relief; including an Order to alter the subject facilities to 

make them readily accessible to, and useable by, individuals with disabilities to the 

extent required by the ADA, and closing the subject facilities until the requisite 

modifications are completed, and ordering Defendant to fulfill its continuing duty to 

maintain the accessible features at the premises in the future as mandated by 28 CFR 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 14 of 16 PageID 14
Page 15 of 16

36.211.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays as follows: 

A. That the Court find Defendant, AHNS GROUP, INC., in 

violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

B. That the Court enter an Order requiring Defendant, AHNS 

GROUP, INC., to (i) remove the physical barriers to 

access and (ii) alter the Subject Property to make the 

Subject Property readily accessible to and useable by 

individuals with disabilities to the full extent required by 

Title III of the ADA;

C. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant, 

pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §36.211, to fulfill its continuing duty 

to maintain its accessible features and equipment so that 

the facility remains accessible to and useable by 

individuals with disabilities to the full extent required by 

Title III of the ADA;

D. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to 

implement and carry out effective policies, practices, and 

procedures to maintain the accessible features and 

equipment pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §36.302 and 28 C.F.R. 

§36.211.

E. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to 

evaluate and neutralize its policies and procedures towards 

persons with disabilities for such reasonable time so as to 

allow them to undertake and complete corrective 

procedures; 

F. An award of attorneys’ fees, costs (including expert fees), 

and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 

an award of monitoring fees associated with insuring that 

the Defendant is in compliance with the ADA.

G. An award of interest upon the original sums of said award 

of attorney’s fees, costs (including expert fees), and other 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 15 of 16 PageID 15
Page 16 of 16

expenses of suit; and

H. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, 

and/or is allowable under Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

Dated this the 7

th day of March, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

By:/s/ Duncan Strickland 

Duncan Strickland

Counsel for Plaintiff

State Bar No.: 24072374

1452 Hughes Road, #200

Grapevine, Texas 76051

Telephone: (214) 478-2753

Facsimile: (832) 218-4317

E-mail: Duncan@StricklandLawFirm.com

DEFENDANT TO BE SERVED:

AHNS GROUP, INC.

C/O Ji Seon Ahn 

13101 Preston Road,, Suite 425

Dallas, TX 75240

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 16 of 16 PageID 16