1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) Case No. 4:24-CV-00049

HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA )

DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and )

LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

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

this, his Complaint against Defendants, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 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 Defendants’

HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA 

MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations 

of Title III of the ADA.

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 1
2

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, 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, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

HOSPITALITY INC. (hereinafter “HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

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

within this judicial district. 

8. Defendant, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

HOSPITALITY INC., may be properly served with process via its registered agent for service, to 

wit: c/o Jitendra Bhakta, Registered Agent, 820 South I-35E, Denton, TX 76205.

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 2
3

9. Defendant, LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC. (hereinafter “LA 

MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC.”) is a Texas company that transacts business in the 

State of Texas and within this judicial district. 

10. Defendant, LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., may be properly 

served with process via its Registered Agent for service, to wit: c/o Tomasa L. Garcia, 

Registered Agent, 12731 Mallard Road, Sanger, TX 76266-3920.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. On or about December 1, 2023, Plaintiff was a customer at “Milpa Kitchen & 

Cantina,” a business located at 820 S. Interstate 35E, Denton, TX 76205, referenced herein as 

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

12. Defendant, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

HOSPITALITY INC., is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that 

Milpa is situated upon and that is the subject of this action, referenced herein as the “Property.” 

13. Plaintiff resides 26 miles from the Property. The Property is directly adjacent to 

I35E which is routinely used by Plaintiff to travel to Denton. As a result, whenever Plaintiff 

travels to Denton he always passes by the Property.

14. Defendant, LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., is the lessee or 

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

15. Defendant, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

HOSPITALITY 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, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC., and a

tenant allocating responsibilities for ADA compliance within the unit the tenant operates, that 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 3
4

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).

16. Plaintiff’s access to the restaurant located at 820 S. Interstate 35E, Denton, TX 

76205, Denton County Property Appraiser’s property identification number 27218 (“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 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. 

17. Plaintiff has visited the Property once before as a customer and advocate for the 

disabled. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access 

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

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

maintain standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes.

18. 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.

19. 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.

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 4
5

20. 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.

21. 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

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

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

23. 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 5
6

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).

24. 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).

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

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

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 6
7

26. 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).

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

28. 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. 

29. 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).

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

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

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

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

dangerous conditions and ADA violations that exist at the Property that preclude and/or limit his 

access to the Property and/or the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

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

specifically set forth in this Complaint.

32. 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 7
8

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. Defendants, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., 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).

34. Defendants, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., will continue to 

discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities unless and until Defendants,

HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA 

MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., 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.

35. 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:

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 8
9

ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS: 

(i) On the northeast side of the Property, the access aisle serving the accessible 

parking space does not extend the full length of the accessible parking space and 

is in violation of Section 502.3.2 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.

(ii) On the northeast side of the Property, the accessible parking space has a cross 

slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG 

standards and is not level. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and 

difficult for Plaintiff to enter and exit the vehicle as a level surface is needed so 

the wheelchair does not tip over and injure Plaintiff as excessive cross-slopes 

increases the likelihood of Plaintiff’s wheelchair tipping over on its side and 

injuring Plaintiff.

(iii) On the northeast side of the Property, 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) On the northeast side of the Property, due to the presence of a large crack in the 

pavement, the ground surfaces of the accessible space 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 502.4, 302 and 303 of 

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

difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 9
10

(v) On the northeast side of the Property, 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. 

(vi) On the northeast side of the Property, 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.

(vii) On the northeast side of the Property, there is a vertical rise at the top of the 

accessible ramp that is approximately 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.

(viii) On the northeast side of the Property, due to the presence of an opening in the 

pavement at the top of the accessible ramp that is approximately three inches, the

ground surfaces 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 10
11

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.

(ix) Given the barriers to access identified in (vii and (viii) above, the accessible 

parking space on the northeast corner of the Property lacks an accessible route 

from the accessible parking space to the entrance of the public accommodation in 

violation of section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards.

(x) In front of Room 152, the access aisle serving the accessible parking space does 

not extend the full length of the accessible parking space and is in violation of 

Section 502.3.2 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.

(xi) In front of Room 152, due to the presence of a curb with an approximate threeinch vertical rise, the total vertical rise of accessible route leading from access 

aisle to the accessible entrances is greater than 1⁄2 (one-half) inch and thus, the 

accessible route is not ramped in compliance with Section 405 or 406, this is a 

violation of Section 303.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

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

Property because the vertical rise in the form of stairs would make it almost 

impossible for Plaintiff to safely access the interior of the public accommodation.

(xii) In front of Room 152, due to a failure to enact a policy of proper foliage 

maintenance, there is foliage growing in the accessible parking space. As a result, 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 11
12

the ground surfaces of the accessible space 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 502.4, 302 and 303 of the 2010 

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

for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(xiii) The closest accessible ramp to the accessible parking space located in front of 

Room 152, is the accessible ramp referenced in (vii and viii) above. Given the 

barriers to access identified in (vii and viii) above, the accessible parking space 

located in front of Room 152 lacks an accessible route from the accessible 

parking space to the entrance of the public accommodation in violation of section 

208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards.

(xiv) In front of Room 152, the bottom edge of the sign identifying the accessible 

parking space is at a height below 60 inches from the floor 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.

(xv) In front of Room 143, there is a policy of placing a parking stop in the access aisle 

which improperly encourages parking in the access aisle in violation of Section

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

difficult for Plaintiff to leave a vehicle when parked in this accessible parking 

space as it is probable a vehicle may be parked in the access aisle due to the 

encouragement of parking there.

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 12
13

(xvi) In front of Room 143, 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.

(xvii) In front of Milpa, due to a failure to enact a policy of proper foliage maintenance, 

there is foliage growing in the accessible parking spaces. As a result, the ground 

surfaces of the accessible spaces 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 502.4, 302 and 303 of the 2010 ADAAG 

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

Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.

(xviii) In front of Milpa, one of the two accessible parking spaces 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.

(xix) In front of Milpa, the bottom edge of the sign identifying the accessible parking 

space is at a height below 60 inches from the floor 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.

(xx) In front of Milpa, the accessible parking space is not level due to the presence of 

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

the 2010 ADAAG standards. This 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 13
14

and enter their vehicle. Moreover, when the vehicle parks in this space, the 

vehicle blocks the accessible route to the ramp.

(xxi) In front of Milpa, the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the 

accessible parking space 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.

(xxii) In front of Milpa, 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. 

(xxiii) In front of Milpa, 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.

(xxiv) In front of Milpa, the Property has an accessible ramp leading from the accessible 

parking spaces 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 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 14
15

arm strain to wheel up the ramp and increases the likelihood of the wheelchair 

falling backwards and Plaintiff being injured.

(xxv) There is a vertical rise at the base 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.

(xxvi) In front of Room 133, the accessible parking space has vertical rises in excess of 

1⁄4 inch and is in violation of Sections 303.2 and 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 well as 

make it difficult for Plaintiff to travel to the public accommodations offered at the 

Property.

(xxvii) In front of Room 133, due to an inadequate policy of parking lot maintenance or a 

lack thereof, the accessible parking space is not adequately marked so as to 

adequately gauge the width of accessible parking space and the presence of an 

access aisle and is therefore in violation of Sections 502.1 and 502.2 of the 2010 

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

locate an accessible parking space and may cause other vehicles to unknowingly 

park in the accessible parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 15
16

(xxviii)In front of Room 133, 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. 

(xxix) In front of Room 133, 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.

(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.

MILPA RESTROOMS

(xxxi) The door to the restroom stall lacks a clear minimum maneuvering clearance, due 

to the proximity of the door hardware within 18 inches to the adjacent urinal, in 

violation of Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

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

utilize the restroom due to the fact individuals in wheelchairs have their feet 

sticking out 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 stall door.

(xxxii) The accessible toilet stall lacks the required size and turning clearance as required 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 16
17

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

make it difficult for Plaintiff’s wheelchair to fit into and maneuver within the 

toilet stall.

(xxxiii)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.

(xxxiv)The toilet paper dispenser in the accessible toilet is not positioned seven to nine 

inches in front of the toilet and therefore is in violation of Section 604.7 of the 

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

Plaintiff to utilize the toilet due to the fact the toilet paper dispenser is at an 

improper distance from the toilet, given Plaintiff’s disability, Plaintiff would not 

be able to get up and reach the toilet paper.

(xxxv) The door hardware of the bathroom stalls has operable parts which require tight 

grasping, pinching or twisting of the wrist in violation of Section 309.4 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 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.

(xxxvii) 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. 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 17
18

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

individual to reach the actionable mechanism of the paper towel dispenser as 

individuals in wheelchairs are seated and have significantly less reach range than 

individuals who stand up.

(xxxviii) The restroom with the red door 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.

(xxxix)The restroom with the red door has grab bars adjacent to the commode which are 

not in compliance with Section 604.5.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards as the side 

bar is located more than 12” from the rear wall. 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.

(xl) In the restroom with the red door, the side grab bar is not positioned in accordance 

with Sections 609.4 and 604.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to 

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

utilize the restroom facilities.

(xli) In the restroom with the red door, the side grab bar is positioned more than 36” 

above the finished floor and is not positioned in accordance with Section 609.4 of 

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

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

(xlii) In the restroom with the red door, there is a policy of placing the toilet paper 

dispenser under the side grab bar of the accessible toilet so that the grab bar no 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 18
19

longer complies with the 1 1/2-inch spacing requirement set forth in Section 609.3 

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

Plaintiff and other individuals with disabilities to utilize the accessible toilet 

safely as the grab bars are blocked and/or impeded by the objects placed under the 

grab bar. The lack of spacing would make it difficult for Plaintiff to grab the bar 

adequately and transfer back and forth to the wheelchair.

(xliii) In the restroom with the red door, the door locking 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.

(xliv) The restroom with the red door has 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.

(xlv) In the restroom with the red door, the controls on the faucets require pinching and 

turning of the wrists in violation of Section 309.4 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.

(xlvi) In the restroom with the red door, the actionable mechanism of the paper towel 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 19
20

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 dispenser as individuals in wheelchairs are seated and have 

significantly less reach range than individuals who stand up.

(xlvii) In the restroom with the red door, the toilet paper dispenser in the accessible toilet 

is not positioned seven to nine inches in front of the toilet and therefore is in 

violation of Section 604.7 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access 

would make it difficult for Plaintiff to utilize the toilet due to the fact the toilet 

paper dispenser is at an improper distance from the toilet, given Plaintiff’s 

disability, Plaintiff would not be able to get up and reach the toilet paper.

(xlviii) In the restroom with the red door, the rear grab bar adjacent to the commode is 

not in compliance with Section 604.5 of the 2010 ADAAG standards as the rear 

bar is missing. 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.

36. 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. 

37. 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. 

38. 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-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 20
21

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

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

Property into compliance with the ADA.

40. 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.

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

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

HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA 

MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., have the financial resources to make the necessary 

modifications since the Property is valued at $2,142,325.00 according to the Property Appraiser 

website.

42. 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 available from the IRS for spending money on accessibility 

modifications.

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

44. 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.

45. 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, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 21
22

LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., are required to remove the physical barriers, 

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

herein. 

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

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

detriment to Defendants, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY 

INC. and LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC.

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

litigation from Defendants, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA 

HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12188 and 12205.

49. 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, 

HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA 

MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., to modify the Property to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

(a) That the Court find Defendants, HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA 

NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 

INC., in violation of the ADA and ADAAG;

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

HOSPITALITY INNS OF NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and 

LA MILPA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., from continuing their 

discriminatory practices;

Case 4:24-cv-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 22
23

(c) That the Court issue an Order requiring Defendants, HOSPITALITY INNS OF 

NEVADA DBA NEVADA HOSPITALITY INC. and LA MILPA MEXICAN 

RESTAURANT, 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 19, 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-00049-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 23