1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) Case No. 4:23-CV-00011

JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. )

HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and )

YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

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

this, his Complaint against Defendants, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES 

FAMILY TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, 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’

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 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 1 of 18 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 and standing. 

5. Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 

6. In addition to being a customer of the public accommodation on the Property, 

Plaintiff is also an independent advocate for 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. Her 

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 demonstrate the plausibility of Plaintiff returning to the Property once the barriers to 

access identified in this Complaint are removed in order to strengthen the already existing 

standing to confer jurisdiction upon this Court so an injunction can be issued correcting the 

numerous ADA violations on this property. (“Advocacy Purposes”). 

7. Defendant, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY 

TRUST (hereinafter “JAMES HOLMES”), is an individual who transacts business in the State of 

Texas and within this judicial district.

8. Defendant, JAMES HOLMES, may be properly served with process for service, 

to wit: 2016 Justin Road, Suite 300, Lewisville, TX 75077.

9. Defendant, YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION (hereinafter “YIPPIE DOODLE 

CORPORATION”), is a Texas corporation that transacts business in the State of Texas and 

within this judicial district.

10. Defendant, YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, may be properly served with 

process for service via its Registered Agent, to wit: c/o Michael J. Lindsey, Registered Agent, 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
3

14800 Quorum Drive, Suite 275, Dallas, TX 75254.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. On or about December 1, 2023, Plaintiff was a customer at “Old Hags,” a 

business located at 359 Lake Park Road, Lewisville, TX 75057, referenced herein as “Old 

Hags”. Attached is a receipt documenting Plaintiff’s purchase. See Exhibit 1. Also attached is

a photograph documenting Plaintiff’s visit to the Property. See Exhibit 2.

12. Defendant, JAMES HOLMES, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and 

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

herein as the “Property.” 

13. Defendant, YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, is the lessee or sublessee of the 

real property and improvements that are the subject of this action.

14. Plaintiff lives 11 miles from the Property.

15. Given the close vicinity of the Property to Plaintiff’s residence, Plaintiff is 

routinely travelling by the Property on at least a monthly basis.

16. Plaintiff’s access to the business(es) located 359 Lake Park Road, Lewisville, TX 

75057, Denton County Property Appraiser’s property identification numbers: 152336, 18654 and 

18675 (“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, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and

YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, 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 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
4

17. Defendant, JAMES HOLMES, 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, JAMES HOLMES and the 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 independent 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).

18. 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 for Advocacy Purposes.

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

return customer living in the near vicinity 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, encountered the barriers to access the Property that are detailed in this 

Complaint, engaged 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 present at the Property.

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 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
5

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 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 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

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;

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
6

(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).

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. 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
7

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. 

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 as well 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 in the very near future 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, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
8

TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, 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 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

35. Defendants, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY 

TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff 

and others with disabilities unless and until Defendants, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES 

C. HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, 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, or was made aware of prior to the filing 

of this Complaint, 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. In front of Unit 128, the two access aisles to the accessible parking space are

not level due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisles 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
9

their vehicle while parked at the Property as the lift from the van may rest 

upon the ramp and create an unlevel surface. 

ii. In front of Unit 128, the two accessible curb ramps are improperly protruding 

into the access aisles 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. In front of Unit 128, the accessible parking space is missing an identification 

sign 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.

iv. In front of Unit 128, there are vertical rises at the base of the two accessible 

ramps that are in excess of a 1⁄4 of an inch, in violation of Section 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.

v. In front of Unit 128, there are vertical rises at the top of the two accessible 

ramps that are in excess of a 1⁄4 of an inch, in violation of Section 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
10

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.

vi. In front of Unit 130, there are two accessible parking spaces that 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.

vii. In front of Unit 118, there are two accessible parking spaces that 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.

viii. In front of Unit 118, one of the two accessible parking spaces is not located on 

the shortest distance to the accessible route leading to the accessible entrances 

in violation of Section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to 

access would make it difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to access the units 

of the Property from these accessible parking spaces as the far location 

increases the likelihood of traversing into the vehicular way and getting struck 

by a vehicle or encountering a barrier to access which stops Plaintiff from 

accessing the public accommodations offered at the Property.

ix. In front of Unit 118, the access aisle to one of 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 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
11

their vehicle while parked at the Property as the lift from the van may rest 

upon the ramp and create an unlevel surface. 

x. In front of Unit 118, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into 

the access aisle of one 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.

xi. In front of Unit 118, one of the two accessible parking spaces is not level due 

to the presence of accessible ramp side flares in the accessible parking space 

in violation of Sections 502.4 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.

xii. Nearest Unit 359, 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. 

xiii. Nearest Unit 359, 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
12

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.

xiv. Due to a policy of not having parking stops for the parking spaces directly in 

front of the exterior access route, cars routinely pull up all the way to the curb 

and the "nose" of the vehicle extends into the access route causing the exterior 

access route to routinely have clear widths below the minimum thirty-six 

(36") inch requirement specified by Section 403.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG 

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

Plaintiff to access exterior public features of the Property as there is not 

enough clear width for Plaintiff’s wheelchair. 

xv. Due to a policy of not having parking stops for the parking spaces directly in 

front of the exterior access route, cars routinely pull up all the way to the curb 

and the "nose" of the vehicle extends into the access route as a result, in 

violation of Section 502.7 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards, parking spaces are 

not properly designed so that parked cars and vans cannot obstruct the 

required clear width of adjacent accessible routes. This barrier to access would 

make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access exterior public features 

of the Property as there is not enough clear width for Plaintiff’s wheelchair.

xvi. There are multiple buildings on the site which are each public 

accommodation, yet there lacks a single accessible route connecting the 

buildings, this is a violation of Section 206.2.2 of the 2010 ADAAG 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
13

Standards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to access 

the public features on the site.

xvii. There are no accessible parking spaces serving the building where Unit 110 is 

located. As a result, the accessible parking spaces are not properly located 

and/or distributed on the Property in violation of Section 208.3 of the 2010 

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

to locate an accessible parking space.

xviii. The Property has an accessible ramp leading from the public sidewalk 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.

xix. The required handrails on both sides of the accessible ramp leading from the 

public sidewalk are missing, in violation of Section 505.2 of the 2010 

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

to access the units of the Property.

xx. 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 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
14

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

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

OLD HAG’s RESTROOMS

xxii. The height of coat hook located in accessible restroom stall is above 48 (fortyeight) inches from the finished floor in violation of Section 308.2.1 of the 

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

Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to reach the coat hook as individuals 

in wheelchairs are seated and have significantly less reach range than 

individuals who stand up.

xxiii. Restrooms have a sink with inadequate knee and toe clearance in violation of 

Section 306 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to utilize the 

restroom sink as Plaintiff is seated in a wheelchair and, when seated, 

Plaintiff’s feet and legs protrude out in front. In order to properly utilize a 

sink, Plaintiff’s legs must be able to be underneath the surface of the sink, but 

due to the improper configuration of the sink, there is no room underneath for 

Plaintiff’s legs and feet.

xxiv. The grab bars/handrails adjacent to the commode are missing and violate 

Section 604.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

make it difficult for Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to safely transfer 

from the wheelchair to the toilet and back to the wheelchair.

xxv. The accessible toilet stall lacks the required size and turning clearance as 

required in Section 604.8.1.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
15

access would make it difficult for Plaintiff’s wheelchair to fit into and 

maneuver within the toilet stall.

xxvi. The accessible toilet stall door is not self-closing and violates Section

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

difficult for the Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to safely and privately 

utilize the restroom facilities.

xxvii. The accessible toilet stall door swings into the clear floor space required by 

the stall and violates Section 604.8.1.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

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

individual to safely utilize the restroom facilities. 

xxviii. 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.

xxix. There is a policy of placing items in close proximity to the restroom door. As 

a result, the door of the restroom entrance lacks a clear minimum 

maneuvering clearance, due to the proximity of the door hardware within 18” 

of the stored items, 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 exit 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.

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
16

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 

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 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, JAMES 

HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE 

CORPORATION, have the financial resources to make the necessary modifications. According 

to the Property Appraiser, the collective Appraised value of the Property is $3,502,042.00.

43. 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 from the IRS for spending money on accessibility 

modifications.

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

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

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
17

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

the 1991 ADAAG standards.

46. 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, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and YIPPIE 

DOODLE CORPORATION, are required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous conditions 

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

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

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

detriment to Defendants, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY TRUST 

and YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION.

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

litigation from Defendants, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY 

TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188 and 12205.

50. 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, JAMES 

HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE 

CORPORATION, to modify the Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Defendants, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C.

HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE CORPORATION, in 

violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

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

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
18

HOLMES, Trustee of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and YIPPIE 

DOODLE CORPORATION, from continuing their discriminatory practices;

(c) That the Court issue an Order requiring Defendants, JAMES HOLMES, Trustee 

of JAMES C. HOLMES FAMILY TRUST and YIPPIE DOODLE 

CORPORATION to (i) remove the physical barriers to access and (ii) alter the 

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: January 7, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

/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

Case 4:24-cv-00011-SDJ-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/07/24 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18