Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

BRANDON CRIDER,

an individual,

PLAINTIFF,

v. 

EUGENIA FOUST, 

an individual, 

 DEFENDANT.

*

*

*

*

* 

* Case No. 3:22-cv-2415

*

*

*

*

*

COMPLAINT

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

Defendant, EUGENIA FOUST, an 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-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1
Page 2 of 17

§ 12181 et seq., based upon Defendant’s, EUGENIA FOUST’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, BRANDON 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. Defendant, EUGENIA FOUST, is an individual conducting business in 

the State of Texas and within this judicial district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On or about February 2022, Plaintiff was a customer at the Swiss Donut

located at 622 N. Story Rd., Irving, TX 75061 (“Subject Facility”, “Subject 

Property”).

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID 2
Page 3 of 17

9. EUGENIA FOUST is the owner, lessor, and/or operator/lessee of the 

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

Swiss Donut and its attendant facilities, including vehicular parking and common 

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

identification number 32479500000110000 (“Subject Facility”, “Subject 

Property”).

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

the Subject Property is located on Story Rd, a Dallas thoroughfare that he frequents 

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

about the immediate area of the Subject Property numerous times every month, if 

not every week.

11. While traveling in the area, Plaintiff routinely stops to patronize various 

gas stations, convenience stores, and retail stores along his routine route of travel 

around his home to purchase gasoline, use the bathroom, purchase convenience 

items, and also purchase general goods and services of the type that would be 

purchased by any other person in their daily life.

12. Plaintiff’s patronage of various businesses around his home is central 

to his daily life like it would be for any other person in their daily life.

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID 3
Page 4 of 17

13. Plaintiff intends to continue patronizing places of public 

accommodation in the general vicinity of his home, as every person in this country 

has the right to do.

14. 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, EUGENIA FOUST, 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.

15. Plaintiff has visited, i.e. patronized or attempted to patronize, the 

Subject Property on multiple prior occasions. 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 (i.e. purchase gasoline, use the bathroom, purchase 

convenience items, and also purchase general goods and services of the type that 

would be purchased by any other person in their daily life), and to determine if and 

when the Subject Property is made accessible. 

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

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

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID 4
Page 5 of 17

does not intend to continue to repeatedly re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers 

to equal access and engage in the futile 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. 

17. Plaintiff recently traveled to the Subject Property as a patron, 

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.

18. Plaintiff has a fundamental right as established under the ADA to 

patronize any place of public accommodation as any person who is not disabled has.

19. Plaintiff’s day-to-day life has been negatively affected by the barriers 

to entry at the Subject Property, as his fundamental right to patronize any place of 

public accommodation at his choosing has been diminished by Defendant’s noncompliance with the ADA.

20. Plaintiff has no obligation to only patronize places of public 

accommodation that are ADA compliant.

21. If barriers to entry are not removed at the Subject Property, it will place 

undue hardship, cause Plaintiff loss of opportunity, and unduly force Plaintiff to 

“search” for a place of public accommodation to patronize that is ADA compliant.

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID 5
Page 6 of 17

COUNT I – CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Against Defendant for ADA Violations)

22. 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).

23. The Subject Property is a public accommodation and service 

establishment.

24. 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.

25. 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).

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

and the ADAAG.

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

Subject Property in his capacity as a patron at the Subject Property, 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 

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID 6
Page 7 of 17

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.

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

future as a patron, 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 barriers, conditions and ADA violations more 

specifically set forth in this Complaint.

29. Defendant, EUGENIA FOUST, 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).

30. Defendant, EUGENIA FOUST, will continue to discriminate against 

Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until EUGENIA FOUST, is 

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID 7
Page 8 of 17

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.

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 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)

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

for Plaintiff to utilize the parking facility at the Subject 

Property and caused loss of opportunity.

b. There is no designated accessible parking space present 

in the parking facility servicing the Subject Property in 

violation of Section 4.1 and 4.6 of the 1991 ADAAG 

and Section 208 and 208.2 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. There is no access aisle serving the parking spaces 

closest to the entrance in violation of Section 4.6 of the 

1991 ADAAG and Sections 208 and 502 of the 2010 

ADAAG. These violations made it dangerous for 

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID 8
Page 9 of 17

Plaintiff to utilize the parking facility at the Subject 

Property and caused Plaintiff loss of opportunity.

d. 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.

e. The is no visible upright signage (displaying the 

International Symbol of Accessibility) designating 

parking spaces as accessible 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.

f. The paint delineating the parking spaces closest to the 

entrance 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. There is no curb ramp present along the route from the 

parking spaces to the entrance of the store in violation 

of Section 303.4 of the 2010 ADAAG and in violation 

of 28 CFR § 36.211. 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-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID 9
Page 10 of 17

h. There is no accessible route from the spaces closest to 

the entrance of the Subject Facility to the entrance of 

the facility. This is in violation of Section 4.3.2 of the 

1991 ADAAG and Section 206.2.1, 402.2, and 403 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

i. 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.

j. 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.

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID 10
Page 11 of 17

k. 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.

32. 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. 

33. 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-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 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.

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

constructed since 2010. 

35. 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.

36. 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. 

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

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID 12
Page 13 of 17

bring the Subject Property into compliance with the ADA.

38. 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. 

39. 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. 

40. 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.

41. 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-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID 13
Page 14 of 17

42. 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.

43. 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, EUGENIA FOUST, 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. 

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

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID 14
Page 15 of 17

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

and costs of litigation from Defendant, EUGENIA FOUST, 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.

46. 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, EUGENIA FOUST, in 

violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

B. That the Court enter an Order requiring Defendant, 

EUGENIA FOUST, 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 

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID 15
Page 16 of 17

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.

Dated this the 28

th day of October, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID 16
Page 17 of 17

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:

EUGENIA FOUST

7310 SEAWALL BLVD #601

GALVESTON, TEXAS 77551

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 1 Filed 10/28/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID 17