Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS IN THE DALLAS 

DIVISION

SHANE CRIDER, *

individually, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

v. * Case No. 22-CV-1052

 *

DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU *

an individual, *

 *

Defendant. *

__________________________________________________________________ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff SHANE CRIDER (“CRIDER” or “Plaintiff”) hereby sues 

Defendant, DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, individual, (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-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1
Page 2 of 17

§ 12181 et seq., based upon Defendant, DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, 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

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, SHANE CRIDER, 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-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID 2
Page 3 of 17

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, DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, is an individual

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

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

patronizing, and/or gaining equal access as a disabled patron to the Subway located

at 1710 W Mockingbird Ln Suite A. Dallas, TX 75235 (“Subject Facility”, “Subject 

Property”).

10. DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, is the owner, lessor, and/or 

operator/lessee of the real property and improvements that are the subject of this 

action, specifically the shopping center 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 778062000000 (“Subject 

Facility”, “Subject Property”).

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

the Subject Property is located on John W. Carpenter Fwy, Dallas thoroughfare that 

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

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID 3
Page 4 of 17

travels 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, DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, 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-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID 4
Page 5 of 17

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-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID 5
Page 6 of 17

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-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID 6
Page 7 of 17

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

Complaint.

23. Defendant, DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, 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, DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, will continue to 

discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until 

DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, 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:

ACCESSIBLE ROUTES/PARKING

(Exterior)

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID 7
Page 8 of 17

a. 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. This violation 

made it dangerous for Plaintiff to utilize the parking 

facility at the Subject Property and caused Plaintiff 

undue upset and loss of opportunity.

b. The purported accessible parking spaces are not level 

in all directions and have areas of uneven, broken 

pavement because of Defendant’s history and practice 

of failing to inspect and maintain the parking surface in 

violation of 28 CFR § 36.211, Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.3 

of the 1991 ADAAG and Sections 302 and 502.4 of the 

2010 ADAAG. This violation made it dangerous for 

Plaintiff to utilize the parking facility at the Subject 

Property and caused Plaintiff undue upset and loss of 

opportunity.

c. The purported accessible aisles are not level in all 

directions and have areas of uneven, broken pavement 

because of Defendant’s history and practice of failing 

to inspect and maintain the parking surface in violation 

of 28 CFR § 36.211, Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.3 of the 

1991 ADAAG and Sections 302 and 502.4 of the 2010 

ADAAG. This violation made it dangerous for Plaintiff 

to utilize the parking facility at the Subject Property 

and caused Plaintiff undue upset and loss of 

opportunity.

d. There is no accessible route provided within the site 

from the public sidewalk which serves the facility. 

Violation: There is broken and cracked pavement 

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID 8
Page 9 of 17

within the purported accessible route from the 

entrance(s) 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. This violation prevented equal access to the 

Subject Property and caused Plaintiff undue upset and 

loss of opportunity.

e. The accessible route along the storefront curb was 

obstructed by vehicles parked in spaces 

abutting the accessible route because no parking stops 

are provided at said parking spaces. This allows 

parked vehicle overhangs to reduce the width of the 

path of travel to less than 36 inches wide for more than 

24 linear inches in violation of Section 4.3 of the 1991 

ADAAG and Section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG. 

This violation prevented equal access to the Subject 

Property and caused Plaintiff undue upset and loss of 

opportunity.

f. There is no visible upright signage (displaying the 

International Symbol of Accessibility) designating one 

of the parking spaces as accessible in violation of 

Section 4.6 of the 1991 ADAAG and Section 502 of 

the 2010 ADAAG. This violation made it dangerous 

for Plaintiff to utilize the parking facility at the Subject 

Property and caused Plaintiff undue upset and loss of 

opportunity.

g. The van accessible parking is too narrow 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 

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID 9
Page 10 of 17

Property and caused Plaintiff undue upset and loss of 

opportunity.

MAINTENANCE PRACTICES

e. 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, 

anxiety, humiliation and/or embarrassment.

f. 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 June 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, anxiety, embarrassment and/or 

humiliation.

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID 10
Page 11 of 17

g. 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, anxiety, humiliation 

and/or embarrassment.

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 

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 

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID 11
Page 12 of 17

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. 

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 

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID 12
Page 13 of 17

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. 

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. 

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID 13
Page 14 of 17

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 

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, DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, 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. 

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID 14
Page 15 of 17

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

and costs of litigation from Defendant, DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, 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 

36.211.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays as follows: 

A. That the Court find Defendant, DIMITRIOS 

PAPATHANASIOU, in violation of the ADA and 

ADAAG;

B. That the Court enter an Order requiring Defendant, 

DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU, 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 

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID 15
Page 16 of 17

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 

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.

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID 16
Page 17 of 17

Dated this the 4

th day of May, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

By: K. Michael Sturgill, Esq.

Counsel for Plaintiff

Texas State Bar No.: 24075588

Telephone: 214-504-6318

Email: mike@sappsturgill.com

DEFENDANT TO BE SERVED:

DIMITRIOS PAPATHANASIOU

6350 HIGHGATE LN.

DALLAS, TX 75214

Case 3:22-cv-01052-K Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID 17