UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT 

DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC., 

a Florida Not-For-Profit corporation, and 

EFREM WALKER, Individually, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

OAKLAND POINT PARTNERS, LLC, a 

Michigan Limited Liability Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________/

Case No. 

COMPLAINT

(Injunctive Relief Demanded) 

 Plaintiffs, DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida Not-For-Profit 

Corporation, and EFREM WALKER, Individually, on their behalf and on behalf of all other 

individuals similarly situated, (sometimes referred to as “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiffs”), hereby sue 

the Defendant, OAKLAND POINT PARTNERS, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability 

Corporation, (sometimes referred to as “Defendant”), for Injunctive Relief, and attorney’s fees, 

litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 

et seq. (“ADA”). 

1. Plaintiff, EFREM WALKER, is an individual residing in Pontiac, MI, in the County of 

Oakland. 

2. Plaintiff, DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC., is a non-profit corporation 

formed under the laws of the State of Florida. DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, 

INC. maintains its principal office at 702 North E Street, Lake Worth, FL 33460, in the 

County of Palm Beach. 

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 9
2

3. Defendant’s property, Oakland Point Shopping Center, is located at 220 N. Telegraph 

Road, Pontiac, Michigan 48341 in Oakland County. 

4. Venue is properly located in the Eastern District of Michigan because venue lies in the 

judicial district of the property situs. The Defendant’s property is located in and does 

business within this judicial district. 

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, this Court has been given original 

jurisdiction over actions which arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2201 

and § 2202. 

6. Plaintiff EFREM WALKER is a Michigan resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an 

individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. EFREM WALKER has visited the 

property which forms the basis of this lawsuit and plans to return to the property to avail 

himself of the goods and services offered to the public at the property. The Plaintiff has 

encountered architectural barriers at the subject property. The barriers to access at the 

property have endangered his safety. The Plaintiff is also a member of the Plaintiff 

organization, DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC., discussed below in 

paragraph 7. 

7. Plaintiff DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC., is a non-profit Florida 

corporation. Members of this organization include individuals with disabilities as defined 

by the ADA, and are representative of a cross-section of the disabilities to be protected 

from discrimination by the ADA. The purpose of this organization is to represent the 

interest of its members by assuring places of public accommodation are accessible to and 

usable by the disabled and that its members are not discriminated against because of their 

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 9
3

disabilities. DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC. and its members have 

suffered and will continue to suffer direct and indirect injury as a result of the 

Defendant’s discrimination until the Defendant is compelled to comply with the 

requirements of the ADA. One or more of its members has suffered an injury that would 

allow it to bring suit in its own right. DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC. has 

also been discriminated against because of its association with its disabled members and 

their claims. 

8. Completely independent of the personal desire to have access to this place of public 

accommodation free of illegal barriers to access, Plaintiff also acts as a "tester" for the 

purpose of discovering, encountering, and engaging discrimination against the disabled in 

public accommodations. When acting as a "tester," Plaintiff employs a routine practice. 

Plaintiff personally visits the public accommodation; engages all of the barriers to access, 

or at least all of those that Plaintiff is able to access; and tests all of those barriers to 

access to determine whether and the extent to which they are illegal barriers to access; 

proceeds with legal action to enjoin such discrimination; and subsequently returns to the 

premises to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA and to otherwise use 

the public accommodation as members of the able-bodied community are able to do. 

Independent of other subsequent visits, Plaintiff also intends to visit the premises 

annually to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, and its maintenance 

of the accessible features of the premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in Plaintiff’s 

individual capacity and as a “tester,” visited the Facility, encountered barriers to access at 

the Facility, and engaged and tested those barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, 

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

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 09/05/08 Page 3 of 9
4

and the ADA violations set forth herein. 

9. Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as 

defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 

36.104. Defendant is responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The 

place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, leases or leases to is 

known as Oakland Point Shopping Center and is located at 220 N. Telegraph Road, 

Pontiac, Michigan 48341. 

10. DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC. and EFREM WALKER have a realistic, 

credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant’s noncompliance with the ADA with respect to this property as described but not necessarily 

limited to the allegations in paragraph 12 of this complaint. Plaintiffs have reasonable 

grounds to believe that they will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of 

the ADA by the Defendant. EFREM WALKER desires to visit Oakland Point Shopping 

Center not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the property but to 

assure himself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that he and others 

similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the property without fear of 

discrimination. 

11. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff and members of the 

corporate Plaintiff organization by denying them access to, and full and equal enjoyment 

of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the 

buildings, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq. 

12. The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the Plaintiff 

in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by January 26, 

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 09/05/08 Page 4 of 9
5

1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

$500,000 or less). A preliminary inspection of Oakland Point Shopping Center has 

shown that violations exist. These violations include, but are not limited to: 

Parking

A. Some of the accessible spaces do not provide signs designating the disabled use spaces, 

in violation of Section 4.6.4 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

B. The disabled use spaces do not have clear and level access aisles provided, violating 

Sections 4.1.2, and 4.6.3 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

C. The disabled use spaces and/or unloading areas are located on a slope in violation of 

Section 4.6.3 and 4.6.6 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

Entrance Access and Path of Travel

A. There are interior doors of the building that exceed the maximum force of 5 lb to open in 

violation of Section 4.13.11 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable whose 

resolution is readily achievable. 

B. There are no proper handrails provided for the ramps to the facility, in violation of 

Section 4.8.5 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

C. There are curb ramps at the facility that project into vehicular areas and/or contain 

excessive slopes, side slopes or cross slopes in violation of Sections 4.7.2, 4.7.5, 4.7.6, 

and 4.7.9 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

D. There are changes in levels of greater than 1⁄2 inch, violating Section 4.3.8 of the ADAAG 

whose resolution is readily achievable. 

E. The clear width and/or maneuvering clearances at doors to the facility are less than the 

prescribed minimums, in violation of Sections 4.13.5 and 4.13.6 of the ADAAG whose 

resolution is readily achievable. 

Access to Goods and Services

A. There are permanently designated interior spaces without proper signage in violation of 

Section 4.1.2 and 4.30 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

B. There are counters throughout the facility in excess of 36”, in violation of Section 7.2(1) 

of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 09/05/08 Page 5 of 9
6

C. There are restrooms for public use at the facility without the required disabled use 

elements, in violation of several Sections of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily 

achievable. 

D. There is fixed or built in seating provided at the facility that does not comply with the 

standards prescribed in Section 4.32 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily 

achievable. 

Restrooms

A. There are exposed pipes in restrooms at the facility, violating of Section 4.19.4 of the 

ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

B. The clear floor space provided in the restroom violates the provisions of Sections 4.2.1, 

4.18.3 and 4.22 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

C. There are urinals provided for public use that do not comply with the standards set forth 

in Section 4.18 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

D. The water closets that are provided for public use at the facility violate the provisions of 

Section 4.16 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

E. The mirrors provided for public use in the restroom are in violation of the requirements in 

Section 4.19 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

F. There are dispensers provided for pubic use in the restroom, with controls outside the 

ranges prescribed in Section 4.27 of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

G. There is a changing area provided for public use that does not comply with the 

requirements of the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

H. There are amenities provided for public use that do not comply with the requirements of 

the ADAAG whose resolution is readily achievable. 

13. The discriminatory violations described in paragraph 12 are not an exclusive list of the 

Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiffs require the inspection of the Defendant’s place of 

public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts 

violating the ADA and all of the barriers to access. The individual Plaintiff, the members 

of the Plaintiff group, and all other individuals similarly situated, have been denied 

access to, and have been denied the benefits of services, programs and activities of the 

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 09/05/08 Page 6 of 9
7

Defendant’s buildings and its facilities, and have otherwise been discriminated against 

and damaged by the Defendant because of the Defendant’s ADA violations, as set forth 

above. The individual Plaintiff, the members of the Plaintiff group and all others 

similarly situated will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without 

the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested herein. In order to remedy this 

discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Defendant’s place of 

public accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. 

14. Defendant has discriminated against the individual and corporate Plaintiffs by denying 

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

advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial 

facility in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, 

the Defendant continues to discriminate against the Plaintiff, and all those similarly 

situated by failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, 

when such modifications are necessary to afford all offered goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities; and by failing 

to take such efforts that may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is 

excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other 

individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services. 

15. Plaintiffs are without adequate remedy at law and are suffering irreparable harm. 

Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel and are entitled to recover attorney’s 

fees, costs and litigation expenses from the Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 

28 CFR 36.505. 

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 09/05/08 Page 7 of 9
8

16. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically 

disabled when such removal is readily achievable for its place of public accommodation 

that has existed prior to January 26, 1992, 28 CFR 36.304(a); in the alternative, if there 

has been an alteration to Defendant’s place of public accommodation since January 26, 

1992, then the Defendant is required to ensure to the maximum extent feasible, that the 

altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and useable by individuals with 

disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, 28 CFR 36.402; and finally, if the 

Defendant’s facility is one which was designed and constructed for first occupancy 

subsequent to January 26, 1993, as defined in 28 CFR 36.401, then the Defendant’s 

facility must be readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities as 

defined by the ADA. 

17. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of the Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer 

employees and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). All other conditions precedent have 

been met by Plaintiffs or waived by the Defendant. 

18. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant Plaintiffs 

Injunctive Relief, including an order to require the Defendant to alter Oakland Point 

Shopping Center to make those facilities readily accessible and useable to the Plaintiffs 

and all other persons with disabilities as defined by the ADA; or by closing the facility 

until such time as the Defendant cures its violations of the ADA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request: 

a. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant at the 

commencement of the subject lawsuit is in violation of Title III of the Americans 

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 09/05/08 Page 8 of 9
9

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 

b. Injunctive relief against the Defendant including an order to make all readily 

achievable alterations to the facility; or to make such facility readily accessible to 

and usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA; and 

to require the Defendant to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or 

procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford all offered goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with 

disabilities; and by failing to take such stops that may be necessary to ensure that 

no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or 

otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of 

auxiliary aids and services. 

c. An award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12205. 

d. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

 

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

\s\ Owen B Dunn Jr -- dated: September 5, 2008

Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. (P66315) 

Law Office of Owen B. Dunn, Jr. 

520 Madison Ave., Suite 330 

Toledo, OH 43604 

(419) 241-9661 – Phone 

(419) 241-9737 - Facsimile 

dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net

Case 2:08-cv-13825-ADT-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 09/05/08 Page 9 of 9