1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) Case No. 4:24-CV-00084

WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

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

this, his Complaint against Defendant, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, 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

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 

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

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1
2

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, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC (hereinafter “WOODMONT 

INVESTMENTS, LLC”), is a Texas limited liability corporation that transacts business in the 

State of Texas and within this judicial district.

8. Defendant, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, may be properly served with 

process for service, via its Registered Agent, to wit: c/o Saleem Rajani, Registered Agent, 515 

W. Main Street, Suite 10, Allen, TX 75013.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On or about November 4, 2023, Plaintiff was a customer at “Amores Italian 

Restaurant,” a business located at 297 W. Round Grove Road, Lewisville, TX 75607, referenced 

herein as “Amores”. Attached is a receipt documenting Plaintiff’s purchase. See Exhibit 1. 

10. Defendant, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, is the owner or co-owner of 

the real property and improvements that Amores is situated upon and that is the subject of this 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 2
3

action, referenced herein as the “Property.” 

11. Plaintiff lives 9 miles from the Property.

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

routinely travelling by the Property.

13. Plaintiff’s access to the public accommodations located 297 W. Round Grove 

Road, Lewisville, TX 75607, Denton County Property Appraiser’s property identification

number: 121096 (“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, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, 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. Defendant, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, 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, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC

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).

15. 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 3
4

revisit is to be a return customer to Amores Italian Restaurant, Plaintiff was also interested in 

returning to be a customer of Jackie’s Ham and Eggs Restaurant at the Property, to determine if 

and when the Property is made accessible and for Advocacy Purposes.

16. 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.

17. 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.

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 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.

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4
5

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.

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).

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 5
6

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 

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. 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 6
7

29. 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.

30. 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. 

31. Defendant, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, 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, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, will continue to discriminate 

against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until Defendant, WOODMONT 

INVESTMENTS, LLC, is compelled to remove all physical barriers that exist at the Property, 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 7
8

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, 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. On the western side of the Property, under the Vista Ridge Chiropractic sign, 

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. On the western side of the Property, under the Vista Ridge Chiropractic sign, 

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. On the western side of the Property, under the Vista Ridge Chiropractic sign, 

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

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 8
9

ramp side flare 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.

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

front of the exterior access route throughout the Property, vehicles 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. 

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

front of the exterior access route throughout the Property, vehicles 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.

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 9
10

vi. On the southern side of the building, in front of Vista Ridge Chiropractic, the 

accessible parking space does not have a marked access aisle in violation of 

Section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access makes 

it nearly impossible for an individual in a wheelchair to enter and exit their 

vehicle at this accessible parking space due to the close presence of parked 

vehicles on either side of the accessible parking space not providing enough 

room for the wheelchair, this eliminates the accessible route from this 

accessible parking space.

vii. On the southern side of the building, in front of Vista Ridge Chiropractic, the 

accessible parking space is not located on the shortest distance to an

accessible ramp 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.

viii. In front of Unit 125, the accessible parking space does not have a marked 

access aisle in violation of Section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access makes it nearly impossible for an individual in a 

wheelchair to enter and exit their vehicle at this accessible parking space due 

to the close presence of parked vehicles on either side of the accessible 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 10
11

parking space not providing enough room for the wheelchair, this eliminates 

the accessible route from this accessible parking space.

ix. As a result of the barrier to access identified in (viii) above, this accessible 

parking space is not located on an accessible route in violation of Section

208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would cause 

difficulty for Plaintiff to exit and enter his vehicle if parked at this accessible 

parking space.

x. In front of Unit 125, 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.

xi. Near Unit 125, 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.

xii. Near Unit 125, 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.

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 11
12

xiii. In front of Unit 140, due to the placement of a shopping cart corral adjacent to 

a column, 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 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. 

xiv. In front of Unit 140, due to the placement of a shopping cart corral next to a 

column, the Property lacks a single continuous 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.

xv. In front of Unit 140, 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.

xvi. In front of Unit 140, the Property has an accessible ramp that lacks finished 

edges or edge protection on both sides and/or is otherwise in violation of 

Section 405.9 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

expose Plaintiff to increased risk of injury for if the wheelchair should fall of 

the side edge of the ramp, the lack of edge protection would likely cause 

Plaintiff to tip and incur injury.

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 12
13

xvii. In front of Unit 170, 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 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. 

xviii. In front of Unit 170, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into 

the access aisle of the 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.

xix. In front of Unit 170, the two accessible parking spaces are not level due to the 

presence of accessible ramp side flares in the accessible parking spaces 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.

xx. In front of Unit 230, the accessible parking space does not have a marked 

access aisle in violation of Section 502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. 

This barrier to access makes it nearly impossible for an individual in a 

wheelchair to enter and exit their vehicle at this accessible parking space due 

to the close presence of parked vehicles on either side of the accessible 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 13
14

parking space not providing enough room for the wheelchair, this eliminates 

the accessible route from this accessible parking space.

xxi. In front of Unit 230, 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.

xxii. In front of Unit 230, 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.

xxiii. In front of Unit 230, the ground surfaces at the base of the accessible ramp 

have vertical rises in excess of 1⁄4 (one quarter) inch in height, are not stable or 

slip resistant, have broken or unstable surfaces or otherwise fail to comply 

with Sections 302, 303 and 405.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier 

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

units of the Property as Plaintiff’s wheel could get snagged on the vertical rise 

and cause the wheelchair to tip.

xxiv. In front of the Enlightenment Academy, 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 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 14
15

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. 

xxv. In front of the Enlightenment Academy, the accessible curb ramp is 

improperly protruding into the access aisle of the 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.

xxvi. In front of the Enlightenment Academy, 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.

xxvii. In front of the Enlightenment Academy, 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.

xxviii. In front of Unit 240, the Property has an accessible ramp leading from the 

accessible parking space to the accessible entrances with a slope exceeding 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 15
16

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.

xxix. In front of Unit 240, there are vertical rises at the base of the accessible ramp 

that is are 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.

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

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

AMORES ITALIAN RESTAURANT RESTROOMS

xxxi. 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.

xxxii. 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

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 16
17

is not 36 inches in length. 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.

xxxiii. The restrooms have grab bars adjacent to the commode which are not in 

compliance with Section 604.5.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards as the rear 

bar does not properly extend at least 24 inches from the centerline of the 

toilet. 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.

xxxiv. The distance of the centerline of the toilet is more than 18” from the side wall. 

As a result, the toilet is not adequately positioned from the side wall or 

partition positioning in violation of 604.2 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.

xxxv. 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.

xxxvi. The lavatories and/or sinks in the restrooms have exposed pipes and surfaces 

and are not insulated or configured to protect against contact in violation of 

Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would 

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

the sink as the pipes underneath the sink typically have sharp surfaces and/or 

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 17
18

hot pipes, and since individuals in wheelchairs use a sink while seated, their 

legs are particularly vulnerable to these threats.

xxxvii. The height of the bottom edge of the reflective surface of the mirror in the 

bathroom is above the 40-inch maximum height permitted by Section 603.3 of 

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

the Plaintiff and/or any disabled individual to properly utilize the mirror in the 

restroom since Plaintiff is sitting in a wheelchair and is lower than a person 

standing up.

xxxviii. The soap dispenser in the restroom is located higher than 48 inches above the 

finished floor which is outside the prescribed vertical reach ranges set forth in 

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 

actionable mechanism of the soap dispenser as individuals in wheelchairs are 

seated and have significantly less reach range than individuals who stand up.

xxxix. 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.

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. 

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

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 18
19

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 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,

WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, has the financial resources to make the necessary 

modifications. According to the Property Appraiser, the collective Appraised value of the 

Property is $5,706,088.00.

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 from the IRS for spending money on accessibility 

modifications.

41. Upon information and good faith belief, the Property has 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

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, 

WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, is required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous 

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

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 19
20

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, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC

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

litigation from Defendant, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, 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,

WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, to modify the Property to the extent required by the

ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Defendant, WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, in 

violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

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

INVESTMENTS, LLC, from continuing their discriminatory practices;

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

INVESTMENTS, LLC 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

Case 4:24-cv-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 20
21

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

circumstances.

Dated: January 27, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Douglas S. Schapiro

Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq.

Southern District of Texas ID No. 3182479

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-00084 Document 1 Filed 01/27/24 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 21