UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

MICHAEL MILES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

LAXMI HOSPITALITY, INC., an Indiana 

Corporation,

And 

HHPSHIRE INVESTMENT, INC., an 

Indiana Corporation,

DBA

“Days Inn Plymouth”

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN 

Judge William C Lee 

Magistrate Judge Christopher A 

Nuechterlein

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiff, MICHAEL MILES, individually, by and through the undersigned counsel, 

Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Counsel for Plaintiff, hereby files this Complaint against the named 

Defendants 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, Michael Miles, 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. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 1 of 9
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 

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 Northern District of Indiana as venue lies in the judicial district of 

the property situs. The Defendant’s property and operations 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, Michael Miles (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Miles”), is a Fulton 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 LAXMI HOSPITALITY, INC. dba the Days Inn Plymouth (hereinafter 

“LAXMI HOSPITALITY” or “Defendants, collectively”) operates or owns a hotel in 

Marshall County, Indiana, which is located at 2229 N. Michigan Street, Plymouth, IN. 

Plaintiff has patronized Defendant’s business and its facilities previously as a place of 

public accommodation and experienced the barriers to access complained of herein. 

6. Defendant HHPSHIRE INVESTMENT, INC dba the Days Inn Plymouth (hereinafter 

“HHPSHIRE INVESTMENT” or “Defendants, collectively”) operates or owns a hotel in 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 2 of 9
Marshall County, Indiana, which is located at 2229 N. Michigan Street, Plymouth, IN. 

Plaintiff has patronized Defendant’s business and its facilities previously as a place of 

public accommodation and experienced the barriers to access complained of herein.

7. Upon information and belief, the facility owned or operated by Defendants is noncompliant with the remedial provisions of the ADA. As Defendants own, lease, lease to, 

or operate a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations 

implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104, Defendants are responsible for 

complying with the obligations of the ADA. Defendants’ facility as a hotel constitutes a 

place of public accommodation, which fails to comply with the ADA and its regulations, 

as also described further herein.

8. Mr. Miles is paraplegic and 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. 

9. Plaintiff travels to Northern Indiana on a frequent basis and he frequents the golf courses, 

restaurants, shopping centers, businesses and establishments of Fort Wayne, Plymouth, 

Warsaw, South Bend and surrounding area, including the Defendants’ hotel and property 

that forms the subject of this complaint. As such, Plaintiff has visited the property that 

forms the basis of this lawsuit on more than one occasion, and he plans to return to the 

property to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public at the property. 

Plaintiff has personally experienced the barriers to access complained of herein and been 

endangered by Defendants’ failure to comply with the ADA and its regulations. 

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 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 3 of 9
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 

features of the premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in Plaintiff’s individual capacity and 

as a “tester,” visited the Facility, encountered barriers to access at the Facility, 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 

Defendants’ 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 Defendants. Plaintiff desires to visit the Defendants’ 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 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 4 of 9
hotel and its amenities without fear of discrimination.

12. The Defendants have 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 Defendants have discriminated, and are 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 facility owned or operated by Defendants has shown that 

many violations of the ADA exist. These violations include, but are not limited to: 

Accessible Routes:

A. Defendants offer no accessible route to access the lobby due to a step, in violation 

of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

B. Defendants offer no accessible route to access its continental breakfast bar due to 

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

Parking Lot Access:

C. No designated accessible parking, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is 

readily achievable.

D. No designated van accessible parking, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is 

readily achievable.

E. No signage designating accessible parking, in violation of the ADA whose 

remedy is readily achievable.

Guestrooms: 

F. No designated accessible guestrooms, whereas two are required, in violation of 

the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable. 

Hotel Property:

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 5 of 9
G. The hotel property has zero (0) accessibility features required by the ADA for the 

benefit of disabled patrons and access, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is 

readily achievable.

Policies and Procedures:

H. The operators lack or have inadequate defined policies and procedures for the

assistance of disabled patrons, in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable. 

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

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

accommodation. Plaintiff requires further inspection of the Defendants’ 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 Defendants’ accommodations; benefit of services; activities; and has otherwise been 

discriminated against and damaged by the Defendants, 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 Defendants’ place of public accommodation in order to determine all of 

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

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITES ACT

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

17. The facility at issue, as owned or operated by Defendants, 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").

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 6 of 9
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 Defendants’

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. Defendants will 

continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until 

Defendants are compelled to remove all physical barriers that exist at the facility, 

including those specifically set forth herein, and make the facility 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 Defendants 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. §12187, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an injunction 

requiring Defendants 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 

requests reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of maintaining this action.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW

In. Code §22-9-1 et seq.

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

22. The Defendants operate or own a "place[s] of public accommodation" pursuant to 

In. Code §22-9-1-3(m).

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 7 of 9
23. Defendants haves committed an unlawful act pursuant to In. Code §22-9-1-2(a) by denying

Plaintiff equal access to and use of public accommodations. 

24. The Plaintiff notified the Defendants of his complaints regarding handicap access in 

person and in a “comment card.” The Defendants have not replied to this correspondence. 

25. Pursuant to In. Code §22-9-1-6, 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 Defendants to allow full and equal enjoyment of the

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Counsel for Plaintiff:

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 8 of 9
/s/ Owen B Dunn Jr.

Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.*

Law Office of Owen B. 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

* OH Bar Number 0074743 and admitted to 

practice in the US District Court for the Northern 

District of Indiana 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00525-WCL-CAN document 3 filed 11/25/15 page 9 of 9