1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) FILE No. 4:23-CV-00698

GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

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

this, his Complaint against Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, 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 Defendant’s

GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, 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.

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

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1
2

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, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC (hereinafter 

“GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC”) is a Texas limited liability company that

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

8. Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, may be properly served 

with process via its registered agent for service, to wit: c/o Vicki Thornton Redden, Registered 

Agent, 10300 North Central Expy., Suite 325, Dallas, TX 75231.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On or about August 11, 2020, Plaintiff was a customer at “El Grande Burrito,” a 

business located at 801 S. Greenville Ave, Allen, TX 75002, referenced herein as “El Grande 

Burrito”. See Receipt attached as Exhibit 1. See also photo of Plaintiff attached as Exhibit 2.

10. On or about July 20, 2023, Plaintiff revisited El Grande Burrito as a customer and 

advocate for the disabled. See Receipt attached as Exhibit 3. See also photo of Plaintiff attached 

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2
3

as Exhibit 4.

11. Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, is the owner or coowner of the real property and improvements that El Grande Burrito is situated upon and that is 

the subject of this action, referenced herein as the “Property.” 

12. Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, 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, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, 

LLC, and a tenant allocating responsibilities for ADA compliance within the unit the tenant 

operates, that lease is only between the property owner and he 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).

13. Plaintiff’s access to the restaurant located at 801 S. Greenville Ave, Allen, TX 

75002, Collin County Property Appraiser’s property identification number 1755023 (“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 

Defendant is 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. 

14. Plaintiff lives 15 miles from the Property.

15. Plaintiff has visited the Property twice 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 are 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 

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3
4

maintain standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes.

16. 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.

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

for the disabled, encountered barriers to access at the Property, suffered legal harm and legal

injury, and will continue to suffer such harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access 

present at the Property.

18. 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, 

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

alternative accessible parking space in the future on her 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 on a future visit.

19. Plaintiff’s inability to fully access the Property and the stores within 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.

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 4
5

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA AND ADAAG

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

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

21. 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, 

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).

22. 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 

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5
6

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).

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

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

24. 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).

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

26. 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. 

27. 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).

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

29. 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 

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6
7

accommodations offered therein, including those barriers, conditions and ADA violations more 

specifically set forth in this Complaint.

30. 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. 

31. Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, 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

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

U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

32. Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, will continue to 

discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until Defendant, R

GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, is 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.

33. 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, 

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7
8

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

ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

(i) Near Unit 119, the accessible parking space is not level due to the presence of an 

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

the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation would make it dangerous and difficult 

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

(ii) Near Unit 119, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the 

accessible parking space in violation of Section 406.5 of the 2010 ADAAG 

Standards. This violation would make it difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to 

exit/enter their vehicle.

(iii) Near Unit 119, the access aisle to the accessible parking space is not level due to 

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

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation would make it dangerous and 

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

(iv) Near Unit 119, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the access 

aisle of the accessible parking space in violation of Section 406.5 of the 2010 

ADAAG Standards. This violation would make it difficult and dangerous for 

Plaintiff to exit/enter their vehicle.

(v) Near Unit 113, the accessible parking space is missing an identification sign in 

violation of Section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation would 

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

(vi) Near Unit 108, the access aisle to the accessible parking space 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-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8
9

of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation would make it dangerous and 

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

(vii) Near Unit 108, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the access 

aisle of the accessible parking space in violation of Section 406.5 of the 2010 

ADAAG Standards. This violation would make it difficult and dangerous for 

Plaintiff to exit/enter their vehicle.

(viii) Near Unit 108, there is a vertical rise exceeding 1⁄4 inch at the base of the 

accessible ramp in violation of Sections 303.2 and 405.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This violation would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to 

access public features of the Property.

(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 

violation would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(x) The Property has an inadequate number of accessible parking spaces in violation 

of section 208.2 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. Thee are 187 total parking 

spaces serving the Property, but there are only five (5) accessible parking spaces 

present, when there should be six (6) accessible parking spaces. This violation 

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

(xi) Outside of El Grande Burrito, due to a policy of placing a large picnic table in the 

exterior access route, there are publicly accessible areas of the Property having

accessible routes with clear widths below the minimum 36 (thirty-six) inch 

requirement as required by Section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9
10

violation would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access exterior 

public features of the Property. 

(xii) Outside of El Grande Burrito, due to a policy of placing a large picnic table in the 

exterior access route, the Property lacks an accessible route connecting accessible 

facilities, accessible elements and/or accessible spaces of the Property in violation 

of Section 206.2.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation would make it

difficult for Plaintiff to access public features of the Property.

(xiii) In El Grande Burrito, there is not at least 5% (five percent) of the dining surfaces 

provided for consumption of food or drink that comply with Section 902.2 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards, requiring appropriate knee and toe clearance complying 

with section 306 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, positioned for a forward 

approach, in violation of section 226.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards.

(xiv) In El Grande Burrito, the bar is lacking any portion of the counter that has a 

maximum height of 34 (thirty-four) inches from the finished floor in violation of 

Section 902.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, all portions of the bar exceed 34 

(thirty-four) inches in height from the finished floor. This violation would make it

difficult for Plaintiff to enjoy the unique eating experience at the bar.

(xv) In El Grande Burrito, there are sales and services counters lacking any portion of 

the counter that has a maximum height of 36 (thirty-six) inches from the finished 

floor in violation of Section 904.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards, all portions of 

the sales and service counter exceed 36 (thirty-six) inches in height from the 

finished floor. This violation would make it difficult for Plaintiff to properly 

transact business at the Property.

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 10
11

(xvi) Defendants fail to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that all 

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

EL GRANDE BURITTO RESTROOMS

(i) The restroom lacks signage in compliance with Sections 216.8 and 703 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any 

disabled individual to locate accessible restroom facilities.

(ii) The restrooms lack proper door hardware in violation of Section 404.2.7 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any

disabled individual to utilize the restroom facilities.

(iii) Restrooms have a sink with inadequate knee and toe clearance in violation of 

Section 306 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This would make it difficult for 

Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to safely utilize the restroom facilities.

(iv) The mirror in the bathrooms exceeds the maximum height permitted by Section 

603.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This violation would make it difficult for 

the Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to properly utilize public features of 

the restroom.

(v) The restrooms have grab bars adjacent to the commode which are not in 

compliance with Section 604.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards as the rear bar is 

less than 36 inches in length. This would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any 

disabled individual to safely utilize the restroom facilities.

34. 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. 

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 11
12

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

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

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

Property into compliance with the ADA.

38. 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.

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

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

GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, has the financial resources to make the necessary 

modifications since the Property is valued at $3,122,100.00 according to the Property Appraiser 

website.

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

Property is also readily achievable because Defendant has 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.

41. Upon information and good faith belief, the Property have been altered since 

2010.

42. 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 

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 12
13

the 1991 ADAAG standards.

43. 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 Defendant, 

GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, is required to remove the physical barriers, 

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

herein. 

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

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

detriment to Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC.

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

litigation from Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12188 and 12205.

47. 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 Defendant, 

GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, to modify the Property to the extent required by 

the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY CORNER, LLC, in 

violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

(b) That the Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, GREENVILLE 

BETHANY CORNER, LLC, from continuing their discriminatory practices;

(c) That the Court issue an Order requiring Defendant, GREENVILLE BETHANY 

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

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 13 of 15 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

Case 4:23-cv-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 14
15

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

circumstances.

Dated: August 1, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

Law Offices of

THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L.

/s/ Douglas S. Schapiro

Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq.

State Bar No. 54538FL

Attorney-in-Charge of Plaintiff

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-00698-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/23 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15