UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Richard Wagner, 

Plaintiff,

v.

My Bucket List, LLC, an Ohio limited liability 

company

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:18-cv-810

Judge 

Magistrate Judge 

NOW COMES Richard Wagner, individually, by and through the undersigned counsel, 

Owen B. Dunn, Jr. and Valerie J. Fatica, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff, who hereby files this 

Complaint against the named Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, litigation 

expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

(“ADA”), alleging as follows: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought by the Plaintiff, Richard Wagner, individually, and on behalf of 

individuals similarly situated, pursuant to the enforcement provision of the American 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), against the Defendant

as delineated herein. 

2. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the following statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which 

governs actions that arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 

U.S.C. § 12181, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives the District Courts original 

jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States; 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4), which gives District Courts jurisdiction over 

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 1
actions to secure civil rights extended by the United States government; and 28 U.S.C. § 

1367, as Count II utilizes the same core of operative facts as Count I, and is therefore 

subject to supplemental jurisdiction. 

3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio as venue lies in the judicial district of 

the property situs. The Defendant’s property and/or operations, as complained of by 

Plaintiff, are located in this judicial district, where the business of public accommodation 

is conducted, including the acts complained of herein. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Richard Wagner, is a Franklin County, Ohio resident, is sui juris, and qualifies 

as an individual with disability as defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), 28 C.F.R. 

36.104. 

5. Defendant My Bucket List, LLC, upon information and belief, operates the business

located at 6013 Glick Rd, Dublin, OH 43017 in Delaware County, Ohio, which is a

restaurant called The Bogey Bar & Grill. Plaintiff has patronized Defendant’s property 

and the facilities thereon previously as a place of public accommodation, and he has 

experienced the barriers to access complained of herein. 

6. Upon information and belief, the facility owned or operated by the Defendant is noncompliant with the remedial provisions of the ADA. As Defendant either owns, leases, 

leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the 

regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104, Defendant is

responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. Defendant’s restaurant is a

place of public accommodation. Defendant’s property fails to comply with the ADA and 

its regulations, as also described further herein.

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 2 of 12 PAGEID #: 2
7. Mr. Wagner is a paraplegic and permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility. As such, he 

is substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including but not 

limited to, standing and walking, as defined by the ADA and its regulations thereto. 

8. Mr. Wagner is a current Franklin County, Ohio resident. As such, he frequents the 

restaurants, parks, and other recreation establishments of the Delaware county area, 

including the Defendant’s property that forms the subject of this complaint.

9. On or about July 9th, 2018, and on prior occasions, Plaintiff patronized the Defendant’s

property, and he plans to return to the property to avail himself of the goods and services 

offered to the public at the property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers 

at the subject property. The barriers to access at the property have endangered his safety 

and protected access to Defendant’s place of public accommodation. 

10. Completely independent of the personal desire to have access to this place of public 

accommodation free of illegal barriers to access, Plaintiff also acts as a "tester" for the 

purpose of discovering, encountering, and engaging discrimination against the disabled in 

public accommodations. When acting as a "tester," Plaintiff employs a routine practice. 

Plaintiff personally visits the public accommodation; engages all of the barriers to access, 

or at least all of those that Plaintiff is able to access; and tests all of those barriers to 

access to determine whether and the extent to which they are illegal barriers to access; 

proceeds with legal action to enjoin such discrimination; and subsequently returns to the 

premises to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA and to otherwise use 

the public accommodation as members of the able-bodied community are able to do. 

Independent of other visits, Plaintiff also intends to visit the premises annually to verify 

its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, and its maintenance of the accessible 

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 3 of 12 PAGEID #: 3
features of the premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in Plaintiff’s individual capacity as 

customer and as a “tester,” visited the shopping center, encountered barriers to access at 

the shopping center, and engaged and tested 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 and the ADA violations set forth herein.

11. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the 

Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this property as described but

not necessarily limited to the allegations contained in this complaint. Plaintiff has 

reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination in 

violation of the ADA by the Defendant. Plaintiff desires to visit the Defendant’s place of 

business again on future occasions, not only to avail himself of the goods and services 

available at the property but to assure himself that this property is in compliance with the 

ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the 

restaurant without fear of discrimination.

12. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to 

the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages 

and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

13. The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the Plaintiff 

in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by January 26, 

1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

$500,000 or less). 

14. A preliminary inspection of the restaurant owned or operated by Defendant has shown 

that many violations of the ADA exist at the subject property. These violations include, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 4 of 12 PAGEID #: 4
but are not limited to: 

Accessible Routes

A. There is no compliant accessible route from the designated accessible parking 

to the restaurant partly due to a ramp with excess slope, excess side slope, and 

no level landing, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

B. There is no compliant accessible route connecting the designated accessible 

parking to the restaurant, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

C. There are cracks and changes in level on the concrete in excess of 1⁄4 inch 

along the accessible route to the restaurant, in violation of the ADA whose 

remedy is readily achievable.

D. The threshold at the entrance door exceeds 1⁄2 inch, in violation of the ADA 

whose remedy is readily achievable.

E. The inner entrance door to access the restaurant has no latch side clearance, in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

F. There is no accessible route to access the outdoor bar and volleyball area due 

to a non-compliant ramp, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

Parking Access:

G. There are no access aisles at the designated accessible parking spaces, in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 5 of 12 PAGEID #: 5
H. There are no designated van accessible parking spaces, in violation of the 

ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

I. There are cracks and changes in level in excess of 1⁄4 inch in the designated 

accessible parking spaces, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

Restrooms #1:

J. Signage on the men’s and women’s restroom is non-compliant and lacks the 

international symbol of accessibility, in violation of the ADA whose remedy 

is readily achievable.

K. The men’s restroom contains missing and non-compliant grab bars around the 

water closet, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

L. The men’s restroom toilet compartment does not have required clear floor 

space for use by customers who use wheelchairs, in violation of the ADA 

whose remedy is readily achievable.

M. The men’s restroom toilet compartment door is not self-closing and lacks door 

pulls on both sides, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

N. The men’s restroom lavatory pipes are not insulated for scalding or contact, in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

O. The urinal in the men’s restroom is mounted in excess of the required height 

range and does not have required clear floor space for a forward approach, in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 6 of 12 PAGEID #: 6
P. The men’s restroom toilet paper dispenser is not located in accordance with 

the 2010 Standards, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

Q. There are amenities in the men’s restroom, including a paper towel dispenser, 

mounted in excess of allowable reach range, in violation of the ADA whose 

remedy is readily achievable.

R. There is not the required latch side clearance to exit the men’s restroom, in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

S. Upon information and belief, the women’s restroom contains similar barriers

to accessibility, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

Restrooms #2

T. Signage on the men’s and women’s restroom is non-compliant and lacks the 

international symbol of accessibility, in violation of the ADA whose remedy 

is readily achievable.

U. The entrance to the men’s restroom does not have the required maneuvering 

clearance to access the restroom, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is 

readily achievable.

V. The men’s restroom contains missing and non-compliant grab bars around the 

water closet, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

W. The men’s restroom toilet compartment does not have required clear floor 

space for use by customers who use wheelchairs, in violation of the ADA 

whose remedy is readily achievable.

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 7 of 12 PAGEID #: 7
X. The men’s restroom toilet compartment door is not self-closing and lacks door 

pulls on both sides, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

Y. The men’s restroom lavatories lack required knee and toe clearance, in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

Z. There are amenities, including a soap dispenser, mounted above the allowable 

reach range, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

AA. The urinals in the men’s restroom are mounted in excess of the required 

height range and do not have required clear floor space for a forward 

approach, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

BB. Upon information and belief, the women’s restroom contains similar 

barriers to accessibility, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

Access to Goods and Services

CC. There are no accessible seating and standing dining surfaces for use by 

customers in wheelchairs due to elevated booths and high-top tables 

throughout the dining areas, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

DD. There is not at least 5% of accessible seating and standing dining surfaces 

in the outdoor seating area, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 8 of 12 PAGEID #: 8
EE.There is no lowered portion of the bar for use by customers in wheelchairs, in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

FF.There is no lowered portion of the outside bar for use by customers in 

wheelchairs, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

Policies and Procedures:

GG. The operator lacks or has inadequately defined policies and procedures for 

the assistance of disabled patrons, in contravention of the ADA whose remedy 

is readily achievable. 

15. The discriminatory violations described in Paragraph 14 by the Defendant are not an 

exclusive list of the ADA violations believed to exist at the place of public 

accommodation. Plaintiff requires further inspection of the Defendant’s place of public 

accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts 

violating the ADA and all of the barriers to access. The Plaintiff, has been denied access 

to Defendant’s accommodations; benefit of services; activities; and has otherwise been 

discriminated against and damaged by the Defendant, as set forth above. The individual 

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated will continue to suffer such discrimination, 

injury and damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested 

herein. In order to remedy this discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff requires an 

inspection of the Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to determine all of 

the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 9 of 12 PAGEID #: 9
COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITES ACT

16. Plaintiff restates the allegations of ¶¶1-15 as if fully rewritten here.

17. The restaurant at issue, as owned or operated by Defendant, is a place of public 

accommodation and service establishment, and as such, must be, but is not, in 

compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") or Americans with 

Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG").

18. Plaintiff was unlawfully denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,

privileges, and advantages of the property on the basis of disability due to Defendant’s

failure to comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its 

accompanying regulations, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182, et seq. 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 facilities, 

including those specifically set forth herein, and make the restaurant accessible to and 

usable by persons with disabilities, including Plaintiff.

19. The Plaintiff, and others similarly-situated, is presently without adequate remedy at law 

and is being damaged by irreparable harm. Plaintiff reasonably anticipates that he will

continue to suffer irreparable harm unless and until Defendant are required to remove the 

physical barriers, dangerous conditions, and ADA violations that exist at the Facility, 

including those set forth herein.

20. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an injunction 

requiring Defendant to make such readily achievable alterations as are legally required to 

provide full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, and 

advantages on its property to disabled persons. In connection with that relief, Plaintiff 

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 10 of 12 PAGEID #: 10
requests reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of maintaining this action.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF OHIO DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAW

O.R.C. §4112.01 et seq.

21. Plaintiff restates the allegations of ¶¶1-20 as if fully rewritten here.

22. The Defendant operates and owns a "place[s] of public accommodation" pursuant to 

O.R.C. § 4112.01(A)(9).

23. Defendant has committed an unlawful act pursuant to O.R.C. § 4112.02(G) by denying

Plaintiff equal access to and use of public accommodations. 

24. Pursuant to O.R.C. §4112.99, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages as 

necessary to insure justice, and attorneys fees and costs, in an amount to be determined at 

trial, but in any event not less than $25,000.00, as well as issuance of an injunction 

requiring Defendant to allow full and equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, and advantages to disabled persons.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands,

For COUNT I, an injunction requiring Defendant to make all readily achievable 

alterations and institute policies and procedures to allow full and equal enjoyment of the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages to disabled persons, and the 

reasonable attorneys fees and costs of maintaining this action; and, 

For COUNT II, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, in an

amount to be determined at trial, but in any event not less than $25,000.00, as well as 

issuance of an injunction requiring Defendant to allow full and equal enjoyment of the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages to disabled persons.

Respectfully Submitted,

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 11 of 12 PAGEID #: 11
Counsel for Plaintiff:

/s/ Owen B Dunn Jr.

Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. (0074743)

Law Offices of Owen Dunn, Jr.

The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center

4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222

Toledo, OH 43615

(419) 241-9661 – Phone

(419) 241-9737 - Facsimile

dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net

and

/s/ Valerie J. Fatica

Valerie J. Fatica (0083812)

4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222

Toledo, OH 43615

(419) 654-1622 – Phone

(419) 241-9737 – Facsimile

valeriefatica@gmail.com

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 12 of 12 PAGEID #: 12