1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Peter Strojnik, State Bar No. 6464

STROJNIK P.C.

2375 East Camelback Road Suite 600

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 524-6602

ADA@strojnik.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ANGELICA T. DAMIANO

Plaintiff, 

vs.

INDIAN TRADE CENTER, INC.

Defendant.

Case No: 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Americans with Disabilities Act

1. 28 CFR § 36.302(e)

2. Negligence

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§12101 et seq. and corresponding regulations, 28 CFR Part 36 and Department of 

Justice Standards for Accessible Design (“ADA”). 

2. Plaintiff is a disabled individual. Plaintiff ambulates with the aid of a cane, walker or 

wheelchair, depending on the distance of movement as a result of Neuropathy related 

to Diabetic Nerve Damage and Degenerative Arthritis. Plaintiff suffers from a 

disability as this term is defined in 42 U.S.C. 12102 and 28 CFR §36.105 (c)(1)(i) 

which includes, inter alia, disabilities in “walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting 

[and] bending” and other activities. 

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 1 of 18
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. Plaintiff is constantly and relentlessly segregated and discriminated against, excluded, 

denied equal services, or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because 

of her disability, and has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from 

services, facilities and opportunities available people without disabilities. 

4. Plaintiff incorporates herein Congressional Findings and Purpose set forth in 42 

U.S.C. §12-101 and 28 CFR §36.101.

5. Plaintiff is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of 

Subchapter III of the Americans with Disabilities Act or has reasonable ground to 

believe that that she is about to be subjected to discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§12183. 

6. Plaintiff alleges that she has actual notice that Defendant has failed to comply with 

Subchapter III of the ADA, 28 CFR 36 as more fully alleged below. 

7. Plaintiff alleges that she has no obligation to engage in futile gestures as referenced 

in 42 U.S.C. §12188(A)(1) and 28 C.F.R. Subpart E

8. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff by the following actions and failures to 

act –

a. Failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures 

which are necessary to afford Plaintiff and others similarly situated accessibility 

to Defendant’s place of public accommodation, thus violating 42 U.S.C. 

§12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 28 C.F.R. §36.302(a); and

b. Failing to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a 

disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently 

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 2 of 18
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, thus 

violating 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); and

c. Failing to remove barriers to accessibility where such removal is readily 

achievable, thus violating 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), 28 CFR 36 and the 2010 

Standards.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff is a disabled person and a committed individual to advance the time when 

places of public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA. Plaintiff resides 

in Mesa, Arizona.

10.Defendant, Indian Trade Center, Inc. D/B/A La Quinta Inn & Suites Gallup owns, 

leases (or leases to another), or operates a hotel at 3880 East Historic Highway 66, 

Gallup, NM 89301, which is a public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12181(7)(A) which offers public lodging services See 28 CFR §36.104 and a listing 

of public accommodations in 42 U.S.C. §12181(7).

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

11.District Court has jurisdiction over this case or controversy by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 

28-1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

12.Plaintiff brings this action as a private attorney general who has been personally 

subjected to discrimination on the basis of her disability, see 42 U.S.C.12188 and 28 

CFR §36.501.

13.Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

///

///

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 3 of 18
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

14.Defendant, directly and through its booking agents, maintains interactive booking 

websites which are expressly aimed at Arizona residents, including Plaintiff.

15.For purposes of personal jurisdiction, the actions of Defendant’s booking agents are 

attributable to the Defendant. Defendant’s booking agent's conduct, on behalf of the 

principal, gives rise to this cause of action.

16.Defendant’s booking agencies are Defendant’s actual or apparent agents, that is, (1) 

they have power to affect the principal's legal relations in accord with the agent's 

reasonable understanding, at the time the agent acts, of the principal's manifestations 

to the agent, and/or (2), Defendant has intentionally or inadvertently induced Plaintiff

to believe that booking agents were Defendant’s agents. 

17.Defendant, directly and/or through its booking agents, maintains interactive websites

which permit the residents of the State of Arizona, including Plaintiff herein, to enter 

into contracts for renting of rooms and otherwise conducting business through the 

internet. 

18.Defendant has purposefully directed its activities or consummated some transaction 

with Arizona residents, including Plaintiff herein. 

STANDING TO SUE JURISDICTION

19.Plaintiff reviewed Defendant’s online reservation services to book an ambulatory and 

wheelchair accessible room. Plaintiff was denied equal opportunity to use and 

enjoyment of a critical public accommodation through Defendant’s acts of 

discrimination and segregation alleged below.

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 4 of 18
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20.Plaintiff intends to book a room at the Defendant’s hotel once Defendant has removed 

all accessibility barriers, including the ones not specifically referenced herein, and has 

fully complied with the ADA.

21. Because of Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of a critical public 

accommodation through Defendant’s acts of discrimination and segregation, she is 

deterred from visiting that accommodation by accessibility barriers and other 

violations of the ADA.

22.Defendant has denied Plaintiff -

a. The opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, or accommodations at its hotel.

b. The right to be included in the population at large who benefits from 

Defendant’s hotel without being segregated because her disability.

23.Plaintiff intends to book a room at Defendant’s hotel in the future, but she will likely 

suffer repeated injury unless and until the barriers of accessibility and ambulatory and 

wheelchair accessibility barriers have been removed.

CONTINUING JURISDICTION

24.ADA violations which form the subject matter of this Verified Complaint change 

frequently due to regular maintenance, remodels, repairs, and normal wear and tear.

25.Defendant’s ADA Violations are of the type that can reasonably be expected to start 

up again, allowing Defendant to be free to return to the old ways' after the threat of a 

lawsuit had passed.

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 5 of 18
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26.If one or more ADA violations are cured, Plaintiff alleges that they were cured and 

timed to anticipate the current lawsuit, and not as a good faith effort to comply with 

the ADA.

27.To remedy the violations of 28 CFR 36.302(e), Defendant would be required not only 

to modify all Defendant’s Booking Agents and Defendant’s own lodging and booking

websites, but would be required to do so truthfully and accurately.

COUNT ONE

Violation of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights under the ADA

28.Plaintiff realleges all allegations heretofore set forth.

29.By virtue of her disability, Plaintiff requires an ADA compliant lodging facility 

particularly applicable to her mobility, both ambulatory and wheelchair assisted.

30.On or about November 5, 2017 Plaintiff decided to visit Albuquerque. On the way to 

Albuquerque, she intended to spend the night in Gallup, New Mexico. 

31.Plaintiff visited Defendant’s booking agent’s website, www.expedia.com

(“Defendants’ Booking Agent”) to book a room there. 

32.Defendant’s Booking Agent’s website did not permit Plaintiff to make reservations 

for accessible guest rooms during the same hours and in the same manner as 

individuals who do not need accessible rooms in the following respect: 

a. Requiring Plaintiff to make additional notes before booking relating to 

“specific accessibility needs”.

33.Defendant’s Booking Agent’s website failed to identify and describe mobility related 

accessibility features and guest rooms offered through its reservations service in 

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 6 of 18
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

enough detail to reasonably permit Plaintiff to assess independently whether 

Defendant’s hotel meets her accessibility needs.

34.Defendant’s Booking Agent’s website disclosed the following accessibility features: 

35.Defendant’s Booking Agent’s website failed to disclose the following accessibility 

features in enough detail to reasonably permit Plaintiff to assess independently 

whether Defendant’s hotel and guest rooms meets her accessibility needs:

a. Whether accessible routes comply with § 206 of the 2010 Standards; and

b. Whether operable parts on accessible elements, accessible routes and 

accessible rooms comply with §§205 and 803 of the 2010 Standards; and

c. Whether any accessible means of egress comply with §207 of the 2010 

Standards.

d. Whether parking spaces comply with §§208 and 502 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 7 of 18
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e. Whether passenger loading zones comply with §§209 and 503 of the 2010 

Standards; and

f. Whether any drinking fountains comply with §211 of the 2010 Standards; and

g. Whether any kitchens, kitchenettes and sinks comply with §§212 and 804 of 

the 2010 Standards; and

h. Whether toilet facilities and bathing facilities comply with §213 of the 2010 

Standards; and

i. Whether any washing machines and clothes dryers comply with §§214 and 611 

of the 2010 Standards; and

j. Whether accessible hotel rooms comply with §224 of the 2010 Standards; and

k. Whether dining surfaces and work surfaces comply with §§226 and 902 of the 

2010 Standards; and

l. Whether sales and service elements comply with §227 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

m. Whether any saunas and steam rooms comply with §§241 and 612 of the 2010 

Standards; and

n. Whether any swimming pools, wading pools and spas comply with §§242 and 

1009 of the 2010 Standards; and

o. Whether floor and ground surfaces comply with §302 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

p. Whether changes in level comply with §303 of the 2010 Standards; and

q. Whether turning spaces comply with § 304 of the 2010 Standards; and

r. Whether floor and ground spaces comply with §305 of the 2010 Standards; and

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 8 of 18
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

s. Whether knee and toes clearances comply with §306 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

t. Whether protruding objects comply with §307 of the 2010 Standards; and

u. Whether the reach ranges comply with §308 of the 2010 Standards; and

v. Whether the operating parts on accessible features comply with §309 of the 

2010 Standards; and

w. Whether accessible routes comply with §402 of the 2010 Standards; and

x. Whether walking surfaces comply with §403 of the 2010 Standards; and

y. Whether doors, doorways and gates comply with §404 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

z. Whether ramps comply with § 405 of the 2010 Standards; and

aa. Whether curb ramps comply with §406 of the 2010 Standards; and

bb.Whether any elevators comply with §407 of the 2010 Standards; and

cc. Whether any platform lifts comply with §410 of the 2010 Standards; and

dd.Whether any stairways comply with §504 of the 2010 Standards; and

ee. Whether handrails on elements requiring handrails comply with §505 of the 

2010 Standards; and

ff. Whether the plumbing facilities comply with Chapter 6 of the 2010 Standards 

with respect to all the following subchapters of Chapter 6: §§ 602 (drinking 

fountains), 603 (toilets and bathing rooms), 604 (water closets and toilet 

compartments, 605 (urinals), 606 (lavatories and sinks), 607 (bathtubs), 607 

(shower compartments), 608 (grab bars), 610 (seats in bathtubs and shower 

compartments), and

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 9 of 18
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

gg.Whether service counters comply with 904 of the 2010 Standards.

36.Thereafter, Plaintiff consulted Defendant’s website at 

http://www.lq.com/en/findandbook/hotel-details.0734.address.html?sessionId=35fb8ed9-f0ee4098-870b25cd4d01714c&searchCity=Gallup%2C+NM&stateAndCountryCode=undefined&searchType=

address&smokingPreference=NSMK&lat=35.531371&lon=-

108.665584&from=%2Fcontent%2Flq%2Flqcom%2Fen%2Fnavigation%2Ffindandbook%2Fdynamic-pages%2Fhotel-searchresults&searchRadius=40&indate=11%2F10%2F2017&outdate=11%2F11%2F2017&rooms=1

&adults=2&numChildren=0&specialRates=RAC&smokingPref=NSMK&promoCode=&amenitie

s to determine the information unavailable from the Defendant’s Booking Agent’s

website.

37.Defendant’s website failed to identify and describe mobility related accessibility 

features and guest rooms offered through its reservations service in enough detail to 

reasonably permit Plaintiff to assess independently whether Defendant’s hotel meets 

her accessibility needs.

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 10 of 18
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38.Defendant’s website disclosed the following accessibility features: 

39.In particular, Defendant’s website failed to disclose the following accessibility 

features in enough detail to reasonably permit Plaintiff to assess independently 

whether Defendant’s hotel and guest rooms meets her accessibility needs:

a. Whether accessible routes comply with § 206 of the 2010 Standards; and

b. Whether operable parts on accessible elements, accessible routes and 

accessible rooms comply with §§205 and 803 of the 2010 Standards; and

c. Whether any accessible means of egress comply with §207 of the 2010 

Standards.

d. Whether parking spaces comply with §§208 and 502 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

e. Whether passenger loading zones comply with §§209 and 503 of the 2010 

Standards; and

f. Whether any drinking fountains comply with §211 of the 2010 Standards; and

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 11 of 18
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

g. Whether any kitchens, kitchenettes and sinks comply with §§212 and 804 of 

the 2010 Standards; and

h. Whether toilet facilities and bathing facilities comply with §213 of the 2010 

Standards; and

i. Whether any washing machines and clothes dryers comply with §§214 and 611 

of the 2010 Standards; and

j. Whether accessible hotel rooms comply with §224 of the 2010 Standards; and

k. Whether dining surfaces and work surfaces comply with §§226 and 902 of the 

2010 Standards; and

l. Whether sales and service elements comply with §227 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

m. Whether any saunas and steam rooms comply with §§241 and 612 of the 2010 

Standards; and

n. Whether any swimming pools, wading pools and spas comply with §§242 and 

1009 of the 2010 Standards; and

o. Whether floor and ground surfaces comply with §302 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

p. Whether changes in level comply with §303 of the 2010 Standards; and

q. Whether turning spaces comply with § 304 of the 2010 Standards; and

r. Whether floor and ground spaces comply with §305 of the 2010 Standards; and

s. Whether knee and toes clearances comply with §306 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

t. Whether protruding objects comply with §307 of the 2010 Standards; and

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 12 of 18
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

u. Whether the reach ranges comply with §308 of the 2010 Standards; and

v. Whether the operating parts on accessible features comply with §309 of the 

2010 Standards; and

w. Whether accessible routes comply with §402 of the 2010 Standards; and

x. Whether walking surfaces comply with §403 of the 2010 Standards; and

y. Whether doors, doorways and gates comply with §404 of the 2010 Standards; 

and

z. Whether ramps comply with § 405 of the 2010 Standards; and

aa. Whether curb ramps comply with §406 of the 2010 Standards; and

bb.Whether any elevators comply with §407 of the 2010 Standards; and

cc. Whether any platform lifts comply with §410 of the 2010 Standards; and

dd.Whether any stairways comply with §504 of the 2010 Standards; and

ee. Whether handrails on elements requiring handrails comply with §505 of the 

2010 Standards; and

ff. Whether the plumbing facilities comply with Chapter 6 of the 2010 Standards 

with respect to all the following subchapters of Chapter 6: §§ 602 (drinking 

fountains), 603 (toilets and bathing rooms), 604 (water closets and toilet 

compartments, 605 (urinals), 606 (lavatories and sinks), 607 (bathtubs), 607 

(shower compartments), 608 (grab bars), 610 (seats in bathtubs and shower 

compartments), and

gg.Whether service counters comply with 904 of the 2010 Standards.

40.As a result of the deficiencies described above, Plaintiff declined to book a room at 

the hotel.

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 13 of 18
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

41.The removal of accessibility barriers listed above is readily achievable.

42.As a direct and proximate result of ADA Violations, Defendant’s failure to remove 

accessibility barriers prevented Plaintiff from equal access to the Defendant’s public 

accommodation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for all relief as follows:

A. Relief described in 42 U.S.C. §2000a – 3; and 

B. Relief described in 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a) and (b) and, particularly -

C. Injunctive relief order to alter Defendant’s place of public accommodation to

make it readily accessible to and usable by ALL individuals with disabilities; 

and

D. Requiring the provision of an auxiliary aid or service, modification of a 

policy, or provision of alternative methods, to the extent required by 

Subchapter III of the ADA; and

E. Nominal damages in the form of equitable relief to secure complete justice; 

and

F. For costs, expenses and attorney’s fees; and

G. All remedies provided for in 28 C.F.R. 36.501(a) and (b).

COUNT TWO

Negligence

43.Plaintiff realleges all allegations heretofore set forth.

44.Defendant had a duty to Plaintiff to remove ADA accessibility barriers so that 

Plaintiff as a disabled individual would have full and equal access to the public 

accommodation. 

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 14 of 18
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45.Defendant breached this duty.

46.Defendant is or should be aware that, 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 problem1.

47.Defendant knowingly and intentionally participated in this historical 

discrimination against Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff damage. 

48.Discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in the use and 

enjoyment of critical public accommodations2.

49.Defendant’s knowing and intentional persistence in discrimination against 

Plaintiff is alleged, causing Plaintiff damage. 

50.Individuals with disabilities, including Plaintiff, continually encounter various 

forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the 

discriminatory effects of architectural, overprotective rules and policies, failure 

to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary 

qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser 

services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities3.

 

1 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2)

2 42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(3)

3 42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(5)

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 15 of 18
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51.Defendant’s knowing and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff reinforces 

above forms of discrimination, causing Plaintiff damage.

52.Census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that people with 

disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely 

disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally4.

53.Defendant’s knowing and intentional discrimination has relegated Plaintiff to 

an inferior status in society, causing Plaintiff damage.

54.The Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure 

equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic 

self-sufficiency for such individuals5.

55.Defendant’s knowing and intentional discrimination has worked counter to our 

Nation’s goals of equality, causing Plaintiff damage.

56.Continued 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 nonproductivity6.

 

4 42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(6)

5 42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(7)

6 42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(8)

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 16 of 18
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

57.Defendant’s knowing and intentional unfair and unnecessary discrimination 

against Plaintiff demonstrates Defendant’s knowing and intentional damage to 

Plaintiff.

58.Defendant’s breach of duty caused Plaintiff damages including, without 

limitation, the feeling of segregation, discrimination, relegation to second class 

citizen status the pain, suffering and emotional damages inherent to 

discrimination and segregation and other damages to be proven at trial.

59.By violating Plaintiff’s civil rights, Defendant engaged in intentional, 

aggravated and outrageous conduct.

60.The ADA has been the law of the land since 1991, but Defendant engaged in a 

conscious action of a reprehensible character, that is, Defendant denied Plaintiff 

her civil rights, and cause her damage by virtue of segregation, discrimination, 

relegation to second class citizen status the pain, suffering and emotional 

damages inherent to discrimination and segregation and other damages to be 

proven at trial

61.Defendant either intended to cause injury to Plaintiff or defendant consciously 

pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of 

significant harm to Plaintiff.

62.Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages in an amount to be proven 

at trial sufficient, however, to deter this Defendant and others similarly situated 

from pursuing similar acts.

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 17 of 18
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

A. For finding of negligence; and

B. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial; and

C. For punitive damages to be proven at trial; and

D. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury in issues triable by a jury.

DATED this 15th day of November 2017.

STROJNIK, P.C.

Peter Strojnik, 6464

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

VERIFICATION

Plaintiff verifies that she has read the forgoing and that the factual allegations stated above 

are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. Plaintiff makes 

this verification under the penalty of perjury.

/s/ Angelica T. Damiano

Authorized Electronically

Case 2:17-cv-04204-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 18 of 18