1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) File No. 4:23-CV-00736

KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, ANTHONY CAIRNS, by and through the undersigned counsel, and files 

this, his Complaint against Defendants, KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, pursuant to 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (“ADA”) and the ADA’s 

Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36 (“ADAAG”). In support thereof, Plaintiff 

respectfully shows this Court as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1343 for Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., based upon Defendants’

KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, failure to remove physical barriers to access and 

violations of Title III of the ADA.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff ANTHONY CAIRNS (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is and has been at all 

times relevant to the instant matter, a natural person residing in Dallas, Texas (Denton County).

3. Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the ADA.

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1
2

4. Plaintiff is required to traverse in a wheelchair and is substantially limited in 

performing one or more major life activities, including but not limited to: walking, standing, 

grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. 

5. Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 

6. 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. His motivation to return to a location, in part, stems from a desire to utilize ADA 

litigation to make Plaintiff’s community more accessible for Plaintiff and others; and pledges to 

do whatever is necessary to create the requisite standing to confer jurisdiction upon this Court so 

an injunction can be issued correcting the numerous ADA violations on this property, including 

returning to the Property as soon as it is accessible (“Advocacy Purposes”).

7. Defendant, KEVIN MOLINARI (hereinafter “KEVIN MOLINARI”) is an 

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

8. Defendant, KEVIN MOLINARI, may be properly served with process via 

service, to wit: 448 Ignacio Blvd., #241, Novato, CA 94949-6085.

9. Defendant, KFC REV, LLC (hereinafter “KFC REV, LLC”) is a Texas limited 

liability corporation that transacts business in the State of Texas and within this judicial district. 

10. Defendant, KFC REV, LLC, may be properly served with process via its 

Registered Agent for service, to wit: c/o Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers 

Inco., Registered Agent, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701.

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2
3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. On or about July 20, 2023, Plaintiff was a customer at “KFC,” a business located 

at 413 Texas 78, Wylie, TX 75098, referenced herein as “KFC”. See Receipt attached as 

Exhibit 1. See also photo of Plaintiff attached as Exhibit 2.

12. Defendant, KEVIN MOLINARI, is the owner or co-owner of the real property 

and improvements that KFC is situated upon and that is the subject of this action, referenced 

herein as the “Property.” 

13. Defendant, KFC REV, LLC, is the lessee or operator of the real property and 

improvements that are the subject of this action.

14. Defendant, KEVIN MOLINARI, as property owner, is responsible for complying 

with the ADA for both the exterior portions and interior portions of the Property. Even if there is 

a lease between Defendant, KEVIN MOLINARI, and a tenant allocating responsibilities for 

ADA compliance within the unit the tenant operates, that lease is only between the property 

owner and the tenant and does not abrogate the Defendant’s requirement to comply with the 

ADA for the entire Property it owns, including the interior portions of the Property which are 

public accommodations. See 28 CFR § 36.201(b).

15. Plaintiff’s access to KFC and other businesses at the Property, located at 413 

Texas 78, Wylie, TX 75098, Collin County Property Appraiser’s property identification number

1960320 (“the Property”), and/or full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, foods, drinks, 

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 Defendants are compelled to remove the physical barriers to access and correct the ADA 

violations that exist at the Property, including those set forth in this Complaint. 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3
4

16. Plaintiff has visited the Property at least once before as a customer and advocate 

for the disabled. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to 

access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose 

of the revisit is to be a return customer, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible 

and to maintain standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes.

17. Plaintiff resides 22 miles from the Property.

18. The Property is located directly adjacent to State Highway 78, a main 

thoroughfare for the eastern Dallas metropolitan area. 

19. Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase goods and/or services as a 

return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the 

ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation 

known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access.

20. Plaintiff travelled to the Property as a customer and as an independent advocate 

for the disabled, personally encountered many barriers to access the Property that are detailed in 

this Complaint, engaged many barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will continue to 

suffer such harm and injury if all the illegal barriers to access present at the Property identified in 

this Complaint are not removed.

21. Although Plaintiff did not personally encounter each and every barrier to access 

identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff became aware of all identified barriers prior to filing 

the Complaint and because Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property as a customer and 

advocate for the disabled within six months or sooner after the barriers to access are removed, it 

is likely that despite not actually encountering a particular barrier to access on one visit, Plaintiff 

may encounter a different barrier to access identified in the Complaint in a subsequent visit as, 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4
5

for example, one accessible parking space may not be available and he would need to use an 

alternative accessible parking space in the future on his subsequent visit. As such, all barriers to 

access identified in the Complaint must be removed in order to ensure Plaintiff will not be 

exposed to barriers to access and legally protected injury.

22. Plaintiff’s inability to fully access the Property and the stores in a safe manner and 

in a manner which inhibits the free and equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered at the 

Property, both now and into the foreseeable future, constitutes an injury in fact as recognized by 

Congress and is historically viewed by Federal Courts as an injury in fact.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA AND ADAAG

23. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

24. Congress found, among other things, that:

(i) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental 

disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole is 

growing older;

(ii) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with 

disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive

social problem;

(iii) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical 

areas as employment, housing public accommodations, education, 

transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health 

services, voting, and access to public services;

(iv) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of 

discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory 

effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, 

overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to existing 

facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5
6

segregation, and relegation to lesser service, programs, activities, benefits, 

jobs, or other opportunities; and

(v) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and 

prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an

equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is 

justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in

unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and non-productivity.

42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(1) - (3), (5) and (9).

25. Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA was to: 

(i) provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(ii) provide a clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and

* * * * *

(iv) invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to 

enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to 

address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with 

disabilities.

42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

26. The congressional legislation provided places of public accommodation one and

a half years from the enactment of the ADA to implement its requirements. 

27. 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).

28. The Property is a public accommodation and service establishment.

29. 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. 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6
7

30. 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).

31. The Property must be, but is not, in compliance with the ADA and ADAAG. 

32. Plaintiff has attempted to, and has to the extent possible, accessed the Property in

his capacity as a customer at the 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 Property that preclude and/or limit his 

access to the 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.

33. Plaintiff intends to visit the Property again as a customer 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 at the 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 Property that preclude and/or limit his access to the 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. 

34. Defendants, KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, have 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

Property, as prohibited by, and by failing to remove architectural barriers as required by, 42 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7
8

U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

35. Defendants, KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, will continue to 

discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until Defendants, KEVIN 

MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, are compelled to remove all physical barriers that exist at the

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

usable by Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities.

36. 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 Property and the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages and accommodations of the Property include, but are not limited to:

ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

i. The two accessible parking spaces and associated access aisle have an 

opening in excess of 1⁄2 inch spanning the entire width of both accessible 

parking spaces and the access aisle and is in violation of Sections 302.3 and 

502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it 

dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while 

parked at the Property as well as make it difficult for Plaintiff to travel to the 

public accommodations offered at the Property as the wheel of the Plaintiff’s 

wheelchair may get stuck in the opening and cause Plaintiff to fall from the 

wheelchair.

ii. The access aisle to the two accessible parking spaces is not level due to the 

presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violation of Section 502.4 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8
9

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it 

dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while 

parked at the Property as the lift from the van may rest upon the ramp and 

create an unlevel surface. 

iii. The accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the access aisle of the 

two accessible parking spaces in violation of Section 406.5 of the 2010 

ADAAG Standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and 

difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the 

Property as the lift from the van may rest upon the ramp and create an unlevel 

surface.

iv. The two accessible parking spaces are not level due to the presence of an 

accessible ramp in the accessible parking spaces in violation of Section 502.4 

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it 

dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while 

parked at the Property as the van may rest upon the ramp and create an

unlevel surface for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle. Moreover, when 

the vehicle parks in this space, the vehicle blocks the accessible route to the 

ramp.

v. The accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the two accessible 

parking spaces in violation of Section 406.5 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to 

exit/enter their vehicle.

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9
10

vi. The Property has an accessible ramp leading from the two accessible parking 

spaces to the accessible entrances with a slope exceeding 1:12 in violation of 

Section 405.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property 

because when ramps are too steep (more than 1:12) it requires too much 

physical arm strain to wheel up the ramp and increases the likelihood of the 

wheelchair falling backwards and Plaintiff being injured.

vii. The accessible ramp side flares have a slope in excess of 1:10 in violation of 

Section 406.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property 

because steep slopes on ramp side flares could cause the wheelchair to tip 

over and injure Plaintiff.

viii. There is a vertical rise at the top of the accessible ramp that is in excess of a 1⁄4 

of an inch, in violation of Sections 303.2 and 405.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for 

Plaintiff to access public features of the Property when using this accessible 

ramp as vertical rises on ramps are particularly dangerous as the surface of the 

ramp is already at a significant slope which increases the likelihood of the 

wheelchair to tip over due to the vertical rise.

ix. The Property lacks an accessible route from the sidewalk to the accessible 

entrance in violation of Section 206.2.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to utilize public 

transportation to access the public accommodations located on the Property.

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10
11

x. The two accessible parking spaces are missing identification signs in violation 

of Section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an accessible parking space.

xi. Defendants fail to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that all 

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

RESTROOMS

xii. The hand operated flush control is not located on the open side of the 

accessible toilet in violation of Section 604.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled 

individual to flush the toilet as the location of the flush control on the open 

side is significantly easier to reach than when it is positioned on the closed 

side.

xiii. The restroom door lacks a clear minimum maneuvering clearance when exiting 

the restroom, due to the proximity of the door hardware within 18 inches to the 

adjacent sink, in violation of Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled 

individual to safely utilize the restroom due to the fact individuals in 

wheelchairs have their feet sticking out in front of them and when there is 

inadequate clearance near the door (less than 18 inches), their protruding feet 

block their ability to reach the door hardware to open the door.

37. The violations enumerated above may not be a complete list of the barriers, 

conditions or violations encountered by Plaintiff and/or which exist at the Property. 

38. Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Property in order to determine all of the 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11
12

discriminatory conditions present at the Property in violation of the ADA. 

39. 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.

40. All of the violations alleged herein are readily achievable to modify to bring the

Property into compliance with the ADA.

41. Upon information and good faith belief, the removal of the physical barriers and 

dangerous conditions present at the Property is readily achievable because the nature and cost of 

the modifications are relatively low.

42. Upon information and good faith belief, the removal of the physical barriers and 

dangerous conditions present at the Property is readily achievable because Defendants, KEVIN 

MOLINARI, has the financial resources to make the necessary modifications since the parcel is

valued at $991,473.00 according to the Property Appraiser website.

43. Upon information and good faith belief, the removal of the physical barriers and 

dangerous conditions present at the Property is readily achievable because Defendant, KFC 

REV, LLC, is part of an international chain of restaurants with over 25,000 outlets in over 147 

countries and a reported revenue of $27.9 billion in 2020.

44. The removal of the physical barriers and dangerous conditions present at the 

Property is also readily achievable because Defendants have available to it a $5,000.00 tax credit 

and up to a $15,000.00 tax deduction available from the IRS for spending money on accessibility 

modifications.

45. Upon information and good faith belief, the Property has been altered since 2010.

46. In instances where the 2010 ADAAG standards do not apply, the 1991 ADAAG 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12
13

standards apply, and all of the alleged violations set forth herein can be modified to comply with 

the 1991 ADAAG standards.

47. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, is suffering irreparable harm, and

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

Defendants, KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, are required to remove the physical

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

alleged herein. 

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

49. The benefit to Plaintiff and the public of the relief outweighs any resulting 

detriment to Defendants, KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC.

50. Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of 

litigation from Defendants, KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 

12188 and 12205.

51. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), this Court is provided authority to grant 

injunctive relief to Plaintiff, including the issuance of an Order directing Defendants, KEVIN 

MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, to modify the Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Defendants, KEVIN MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, in

violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

(b) That the Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, KEVIN 

MOLINARI and KFC REV, LLC, from continuing their discriminatory practices;

(c) That the Court issue an Order requiring Defendants, KEVIN MOLINARI and

KFC REV, LLC, to (i) remove the physical barriers to access and (ii) alter the 

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13
14

subject Property to make it readily accessible to and useable by individuals with 

disabilities to the extent required by the ADA;

(d) That the Court award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses 

and costs; and

(e) That the Court grant such further relief as deemed just and equitable in light of the 

circumstances.

Dated: August 14, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

Law Offices of

THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L.

/s/ Douglas S. Schapiro

Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq.

State Bar No. 54538FL

The Schapiro Law Group, P.L.

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A

Boca Raton, FL 33433

Tel: (561) 807-7388

Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

ANTHONY CAIRNS

Case 4:23-cv-00736-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14