1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) Case No. 4:23-CV-01109

AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

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

this, his Complaint against Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP 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

AKS BUSINESS GROUP 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-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 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, AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC (hereinafter “AKS BUSINESS 

GROUP LLC”) is a Texas limited liability corporation that transacts business in the State of 

Texas and within this judicial district. 

8. Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC, may be properly served with process 

via its registered agent for service, to wit: c/o Arifa K. Surani, Registered Agent, 2112 Country 

Brook Lane, Allen, TX 75002.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On or about November 4, 2023, Plaintiff was a customer at “Kwik Mart,” a 

business located at 1235 S State Highway 121, Lewisville, TX 75067, referenced herein as 

“Kwik Mart”. See Receipt attached as Exhibit 1. See also photo of Plaintiff attached as Exhibit 

2.

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2
3

10. Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real 

property and improvements that Kwik Mart is situated upon and that is the subject of this action, 

referenced herein as the “Property.” 

11. Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP 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, AKS BUSINESS GROUP 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).

12. Plaintiff’s access to Kwik Mart located at 1235 S State Highway 121, Lewisville, 

TX 75067, Denton County Property Appraiser’s property identification number 16494 (“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. 

13. Plaintiff lives 8 miles from the Property.

14. Given the close vicinity of the Property to Plaintiff’s residence and the fact the 

Property is directly adjacent to a major highway, Plaintiff is routinely travelling by the Property 

on at least a monthly basis.

15. PRESUIT NOTICE: On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff mailed to Defendant via 

certified mail/return receipt requested a pre-suit notice of the violations and his intent to file this 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3
4

lawsuit if a settlement could not be reached to resolve the claim prior to filing this Complaint. 

See Pre-suit Letters attached as Exhibit 3. No response was received.

16. Plaintiff has visited the Property 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 be a customer of Taco Hut at the Property, to determine if 

and when the Property is made accessible and to maintain standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy 

Purposes.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 4
5

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.

20. 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.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA AND ADAAG

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

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

22. 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

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5
6

(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).

23. 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).

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

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

25. 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).

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

27. 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. 

28. Public accommodations were required to conform to these regulations by January 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6
7

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).

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

30. 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.

31. 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. 

32. Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP 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).

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7
8

33. Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC, will continue to discriminate against 

Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP 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.

34. 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 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 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. 

ii. 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 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 parking space is not level due to the presence of accessible 

ramp side flares in the accessible parking space in violation of Sections 502.4 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8
9

and 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 van may rest upon the ramp and create an 

unlevel surface for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle.

iv. The Property has an accessible ramp leading from the accessible parking 

space 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.

v. Due to the placement of a Ready Ice Cooler and bollards near the accessible 

ramp, the landing at the top of the curb accessible ramp did not have 36 

(thirty-six) inch clear space in violation of Section 406.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

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

Plaintiff to access the Property. 

vi. As a result of the barriers to access referenced in (v), the Property lacks an 

accessible route from the accessible parking space to the accessible entrance 

of the Property in violation of Section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of 

the Property.

vii. Due to the placement of a Ready Ice Cooler and bollards in the accessible 

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

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9
10

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 barrier to 

access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the rest of the units of the 

Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair would not be able to get past this barrier.

viii. As a result of the barriers to access referenced in (vii), 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 barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff 

to access public features of the Property.

ix. The outside order window is not on an accessible route. As a result, 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 barrier to access would make it 

difficult for Plaintiff to access public features of the Property.

x. The outside to-go/take-out counter 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 to-go/takeout counter exceed 36 (thirty-six) inches in height from the finished floor. 

This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to properly transact 

business at the Property.

xi. Inside the Taco Hut, 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 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 10
11

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

from the finished floor. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

Plaintiff to properly transact business at the Property as Plaintiff is in a 

wheelchair which makes his height much lower than a standing individual, so 

a surface with a maximum height of 36 inches above the finished floor is 

necessary for Plaintiff to sign credit card receipts.

xii. Inside Kwik Mart, due to a policy of storing bottles and other items in the 

accessible route leading to the restroom, the interior has walking surfaces 

lacking a 36 (thirty-six) inch clear width leading to the restroom, in violation 

of Section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

would make it difficult for Plaintiff to properly utilize public features at the 

Property because the width of Plaintiff’s wheelchair would prevent passage 

through areas with a width less than 36 inches.

xiii. Defendant fails to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that all 

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

RESTROOMS

xiv. There is a policy of storing bottles and other items in the accessible route in 

front of the restroom door. As a result, the restroom door lacks a clear 

minimum maneuvering clearance, due to the proximity of the door hardware 

within 18 inches to the adjacent items being stored, 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 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 11
12

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.

xv. The restroom lacks signage in compliance with Sections 216.8 and 703 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for 

Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to locate accessible restroom facilities.

xvi. The door hardware providing access to the restrooms requires tight grasping 

and twisting of the wrist in violation of Section 404.2.7 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or 

any disabled individual to utilize the restroom facilities.

xvii. There is inadequate clear floor space for the toilet due to the location of the 

adjacent sink in violation of Section 604.3.2 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 facilities.

(x) The restrooms lack adequate turning space in violation of Sections 304.3.1 

and 304.3.2 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 facilities.

35. 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. 

36. 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. 

37. The removal of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 12
13

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. § 36.34.

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

Property into compliance with the ADA.

39. 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.

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

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

BUSINESS GROUP LLC, has the financial resources to make the necessary modifications since 

the Property is valued at $690,000.00 according to the Property Appraiser website.

41. 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.

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

43. 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.

44. 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, 

AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC, is required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous

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

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 13
14

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

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

detriment to Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC.

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

litigation from Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188 and

12205.

48. 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, AKS 

BUSINESS GROUP LLC, to modify the Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC, in violation of the

ADA and ADAAG;

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

BUSINESS GROUP LLC, from continuing their discriminatory practices;

(c) That the Court issue an Order requiring Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP 

LLC, to (i) remove the physical barriers to access and (ii) alter the 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: December 15, 2023.

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 14
15

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-01109-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15