1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) Case No. 4:24-CV-00025

DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

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

this, his Complaint against Defendant, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., 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

DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., 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 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 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, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC. (hereinafter “DALROCK 

MANAGEMENT, INC.”) is a Texas company that transacts business in the State of Texas and 

within this judicial district. 

8. Defendant, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., may be properly served with 

process via its registered agent for service, to wit: c/o Guey-Ming Yeh, Registered Agent, 7508 

Stoney Point Drive, Plano, TX 75025.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On or about December 1, 2023, Plaintiff was a customer at “Landmark Grill,” a 

business located at 1297 Justin Road, #310, Lewisville, TX 75077, referenced herein as 

“Landmark Grill”. See Receipt attached as Exhibit 1. See also photo of Plaintiff attached as 

Exhibit 2.

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2
3

10. Defendant, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., is the owner or co-owner of the

real property and improvements that Landmark Grill is situated upon and that is the subject of 

this action, referenced herein as the “Property.” 

11. Defendant, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., 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, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., 

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 the restaurant located at 1297 Justin Road, #310, Lewisville, 

TX 75077, Denton County Property Appraiser’s property identification number 146099 (“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 10 miles from the Property.

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

Property is adjacent to a major highway (I-35E), Plaintiff is routinely travelling by the Property 

on at least a monthly basis.

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 

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3
4

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

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

maintain standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

present at the Property.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exposed to barriers to access and legally protected injury on a future visit.

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

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

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 4
5

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).

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

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5
6

(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. 

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

his capacity as a customer at the Property and as an independent advocate for the disabled, but

could not fully do so because of his disabilities resulting from the physical barriers to access, 

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6
7

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 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, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., 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, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., will continue to discriminate 

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

MANAGEMENT, INC., 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.

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7
8

33. A specific list of unlawful physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA 

violations which Plaintiff experienced and/or observed that precluded and/or limited Plaintiff’s 

access to the Property and the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

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

ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

i. In front of Unit 310, 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. 

ii. In front of Unit 310, 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.

iii. In front of Unit 310, the 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.

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8
9

iv. In front of Unit 310, there is a vertical rise at the top of the accessible ramp 

that is in excess of a 1⁄4 of an inch, in violation of Sections 303.2 and 405.4 of 

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

and difficult for Plaintiff to access public features of the Property when using 

this accessible ramp as vertical rises on ramps are particularly dangerous as 

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

likelihood of the wheelchair to tip over due to the vertical rise.

v. In front of Unit 310, due to a failure to enact a policy of proper parking lot 

maintenance, the signs to the two accessible parking spaces are not visible. As 

a result, the two accessible parking spaces are missing properly visible 

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.

vi. In front of Unit 314, the accessible parking spaces and associated access aisle 

have a running slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of Section 502.4 of the 

2010 ADAAG standards and are not level. This barrier to access would make 

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

parked at the Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair may roll down the slope while 

entering or exiting the vehicle.

vii. In front of Unit 314, 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9
10

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

and create an unlevel surface. 

viii. In front of Unit 314, 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.

ix. In front of Unit 314, 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.

x. In front of Unit 314, 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.

xi. Between Units 312 and 314, the required handrails on both sides of the 

accessible ramp are missing, in violation of Section 505.2 of the 2010 

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 10
11

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

to access the units of the Property.

xii. Nearest to Unit 324, 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.

xiii. The total number of accessible parking spaces is inadequate and is in violation 

of Section 208.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. There are a 138 marked 

parking spaces on the Property, which requires a minimum of five accessible 

parking spaces, but there are only three accessible parking spaces. This barrier 

to access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an available accessible 

parking space as such a small number of accessible parking spaces in a large 

parking lot increases the likelihood of there not being an available accessible 

parking space.

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

facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals.

LANDMARK GRILL RESTROOMS

xv. The actionable mechanism of the paper towel dispenser in the restroom is 

located outside the maximum prescribed vertical reach range of 48 inches 

above the finished floor as 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 paper towel 

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 11
12

dispenser as individuals in wheelchairs are seated and have significantly less 

reach range than individuals who stand up.

xvi. 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.

xvii. 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 

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

legs are particularly vulnerable to these threats.

xviii. 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.

(x) The accessible restroom signage is not located on the latch side of the door 

and is in violation of Section 703.4.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 12
13

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 

difficulty or expense. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv); 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9); 28 C.F.R. § 36.34.

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

Property into compliance with the ADA.

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

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

the modifications are relatively low.

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

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

DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., has the financial resources to make the necessary 

modifications since the Property is valued at $3,060,000.00 according to the Property Appraiser 

website.

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

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

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

modifications.

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 13
14

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, 

DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., is required to remove the physical barriers, dangerous

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

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

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

detriment to Defendant, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC.

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

litigation from Defendant, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., 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, DALROCK 

MANAGEMENT, INC., to modify the Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Defendant, DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., in violation 

of the ADA and ADAAG;

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

MANAGEMENT, INC., from continuing their discriminatory practices;

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

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 14
15

MANAGEMENT, INC., 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: January 10, 2024.

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 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15