-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Jessica P. Tinoco (Bar No. 030317) 

Jason A. Harris (Bar No. 024412) 

Cruz and Associates, P.C. 

1990 W. Camelback Rd., Ste. 203 

Phoenix, AZ 85015 

Tel: (602) 595-5194 

Fax: (602) 595-6893 

Email: jtinoco@Cruzfirm.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Stephan R.F. Holmquist (Bar No. 030379) 

DSR & Associates, P.C. 

5635 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 170 

Scottsdale, AZ 85250 

Telephone: (714) 875-1721 

Facsimile: (480) 718-7586 

Email: sholmquist@dsr-law.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

William Kando, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JERRY SEGAWA, an individual d/b/a 

“ATU Enterprises LTD”; ATU 

ENTERPRISES LTD, a canceled 

California partnership; ABE’S POOLS & 

SPAS, INC., an Arizona corporation; 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

(Temporary, Permanent Injunctive Relief, 

and Compensatory Damages Demanded) 

[American Disabilities Act] 

[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED] 

 Plaintiff, WILLIAM KANDO (“Plaintiff” or “William Kando”), by and through his 

attorneys, brings claims against JERRY SEGAWA d/b/a ATU ENTERPRISES LTD; ATU 

ENTERPRISES LTD; and ABE’S POOLS & SPAS, INC. (collectively, “Defendants”), for: 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 14
-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1) injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”); and 2) negligence and negligence per se causing 

physical injury. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This action arises from a violation of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, 

et seq. 

2. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1343. 

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

4. Plaintiff’s state law claims exceed $75,000. 

5. Defendant JERRY SEGAWA (“Segawa”) is an individual who, upon 

information and belief, resides in San Diego, California and does business in Maricopa 

County, Arizona. 

6. ATU Enterprises LTD (the “Partnership”) was a California limited partnership 

that first registered to do business in California on July 1, 1984. 

7. Upon information and belief, on or about July 24, 1984, the Partnership 

purchased certain real property located in Maricopa County at 15235 N. Cave Creek Road, 

Phoenix, Arizona 85032 (the “Property”). 

8. Upon information and belief, the Partnership was dissolved on or around 

January 3, 1995. 

9. Upon information and belief, Segawa was the general partner of the 

Partnership. 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 2 of 14
-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

10. Defendant ABE’S POOLS & SPAS, INC. (“Abe’s Pools”) is an Arizona 

corporation doing business at the Property. 

11. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as the property which is the subject 

matter of this claim is located in Maricopa County and the Defendants are doing business in 

Maricopa County. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Upon information and belief, Defendants received notice long ago of their 

obligation to comply with the ADA. 

13. Upon information and belief, Defendants have had actual and constructive 

notice of their obligations under the ADA through actual notice by virtue of notification 

provided by the Arizona Department of State; constructive notice by virtue of the enactment 

of the ADA and the publicity associated therewith. 

14. Upon information and belief, Segawa continues to do business individually as 

“ATU Enterprises LTD” and is the true owner of the Property. 

15. Upon information and belief, Segawa, doing business as ATU Enterprises 

LTD, owns the Property and leases it to Defendant Abe’s Pools. 

16. Defendant Abe’s Pools operates its business at the Property and presumably 

leases the Property from Segawa. 

17. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7), the Property is a place of public 

accommodation. 

18. Plaintiff, William Kando, is an Arizona resident and disabled. He was, at the 

time of the incident that gave rise to this Complaint, 81 years old and had a valid handicap 

permit. 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 3 of 14
-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

19. Plaintiff has a “qualified disability” under the ADA. 

20. Plaintiff resides in Scottsdale, Arizona and visited the Property on September 

2, 2016, to enjoy certain goods and services that Defendant Abe’s Pools offers to nondisabled members of the public. 

21. On or about September 2, 2016, Plaintiff, a handicapped person, attempted to 

reach Abe’s Pools’ business located on the Property through an accessible entrance, that 

was, in fact, inaccessible under the ADA, when he tripped and fell, suffering injuries. 

22. Plaintiff has plans to return to the Property to enjoy the goods, services, 

privileges, advantages or accommodations being offered by Defendant Abe’s Pools to nondisabled members of the public, but is deterred from returning because of discriminatory 

conditions on the Property. 

23. Plaintiff has suffered an actual injury under the ADA because of his awareness 

of discriminatory conditions on the Property and thus being deterred from visiting or 

patronizing the public accommodations. 

24. Plaintiff’s injury is concrete and particularized because he is being deterred 

from visiting or patronizing the Property. 

25. Plaintiff’s injury is caused as a direct result of Defendants’ failure to comply 

with the ADA by, inter alia, failing to remove discriminatory architectural features on the 

Property. 

26. Plaintiff’s injury will be redressed by the Court’s ordering Defendants to 

comply with the ADA and compensate Plaintiff for the injuries he has suffered. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 4 of 14
-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM 

COUNT I: ADA CLAIM

27. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-26 with this reference as if set forth in full. 

28. For a person with a disability due to ambulatory restrictions like William 

Kando, disability discrimination protects the right to maintain a sense of autonomy versus, 

on the other hand, feeling excluded and marginalized. The difference might be measured in 

mere inches. The same measurements an able-bodied person might casually ignore can work 

as complete and insurmountable barriers for a person in a wheelchair. Thus, the ADA has 

implementing regulations that guide property owners in constructing and building with 

measurements down to the inch--measurements that the government has spent untold time 

and resources constructing, and that truly matter to people like William Kando who need 

them. 

29. The rationale for regulatory details found in the ADA came after years of study 

and fact-finding, involving at least 13 Congressional hearings, and input from over 30,000 

people. See Board of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 390-91 (2001) 

(Breyer, J., dissenting). 

30. Plaintiff considers disability discrimination to be as serious a public and 

personal concern as racial, gender or religious discrimination. To Mr. Kando, the failure of 

a business to remove architectural barriers is hurtful and demeaning. 

31. For every single moment of their operation since the effective date of the ADA 

in 1992, Defendants have had the opportunity to begin eliminating disability discrimination 

on the Property in accordance with anti-discriminatory law. Despite having more than ample 

time, Defendants continued to place their respect for profits over the rights of disabled 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 5 of 14
-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

people. 

32. The most obvious architectural barriers encountered by Plaintiff at the 

shopping center include, inter alia: 

a. There are no curb ramps with detectible warnings (“raised truncated 

domes”), in violation of ADA Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”) 4.29. 

b. In at least one location, the sidewalk cross slope and/or running slope 

is excessively steep, in violation of ADAAG 4.3.7. 

c. The slope of a number of “accessible” parking spaces and access aisles 

is excessive, in violation of ADAAG 4.6. 

d. The width of a number of the access aisles adjacent to “accessible” 

parking spaces is too narrow, in violation of ADAAG 4.6.6. 

e. The “accessible” entrances were not all accessible in violation of 

4.1.2(7)(c) and no directional signage is provided indicating the route to the nearest 

accessible entrance in accordance with the 1991 ADA standard 4.1.2(7)(c), and 2010 

ADA standards 703.7.2.1. There was also not compliance with the alternative that 

directional signs complying with 703.5 that indicate the location of the nearest 

entrance complying with 404 be provided at entrances that do not comply with 404. 

f. The existing curb ramps have excessive running slopes and side flare 

slopes, and one of them extends impermissibly into the access aisle next to the 

accessible parking space. These violate the following 1991 ADA standards: 4.7.5, 

4.8.2, and 4.6.3 and the following 2010 ADA standards: 406.3, 405.2, and 502.4.32. 

Further details about the architectural barriers on the property are contained in the 

photographs attached as Exhibit A. 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 6 of 14
-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

33. The list of barriers above facing Mr. Kando and others with similar disabilities 

contains only the obvious, and is far from comprehensive. Since most barriers involve a 

matter of mere inches or degrees, by their very nature, they are often undetectable to the 

unaided eye. Plaintiff requires a site inspection to provide a comprehensive list of barriers 

that should be removed or remedied. 

34. Defendants have, upon belief, restriped and/or resurfaced or otherwise altered 

the parking spaces on the Property since 1992. 

35. Defendants have also, upon belief, restriped and/or resurfaced or otherwise 

altered the access aisles adjacent to the “accessible” parking spaces on the Property since 

1992. 

36. In addition, Defendants have, upon belief, resurfaced and/or renovated or 

otherwise altered the sidewalks in front of the store on the Property since 1992. 

37. Defendants have further, upon belief, resurfaced or otherwise altered the curb 

ramps and other ramps on the Property since 1992. 

38. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered discrimination 

in the full and equal enjoyment of the good, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or 

accommodations on the Property on the basis of disability. 

39. Defendants are subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination in some or all of the 

following ways, namely: 

a. denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in or benefit from 

Defendant Abe Pools’ business; 

b. failing to provide Plaintiff with the most integrated setting appropriate; 

c. denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in Defendants’ 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 7 of 14
-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

programs or activities that are not separate; 

d failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures that would help people with disabilities; 

e. failing to remove architectural barriers that are structural in nature that 

are readily achievable; and 

f. failing to design or construct a facility that is readily accessible to and 

useable by people with disabilities in accordance with the requirements of the 

ADAAG. 

40. Plaintiff is aware of discriminatory conditions on the Property and is deterred 

from visiting or patronizing the public accommodations. 

41. Removal of each discriminatory barrier is readily achievable, i.e., easily 

accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. 

42. No item of barrier removal is structurally impracticable to meet the 

requirements of the ADAAG. 

43. Plaintiff will suffer continued discrimination if the barriers to access existing 

on the Property are not removed. 

44. Plaintiff has retained counsel for the prosecution of this action. Plaintiff is 

entitled to have his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid by Defendants 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205. 

45. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is vested with the authority to grant 

Plaintiff’s injunctive relief, including an order to alter the Property to make it readily 

accessible to, and useable by, individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA, 

and closing the facility on the Property until the requisite modifications are completed. 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 8 of 14
-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

COUNT II: TORT CLAIM

46. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-45 with this reference. 

47. On or about September 2, 2016, Defendant Segawa held his land out to the 

public thereby owing a duty of care to his patrons. 

48. On or about September 2, 2016, Defendant Abe’s Pools held the Property out 

to the public thereby owing a duty of care to its patrons. 

49. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a business invitee of Defendants. 

50. On or about September 2, 2016, Defendants, individually, had actual 

knowledge, or should have known, of an unreasonably dangerous and hazardous condition 

on their land for which they failed to remedy or warn Plaintiff. 

51. On or about September 2, 2016 Plaintiff, who has a licensed handicap plate, 

pulled into Defendant Abe’s Pools with the intent of entering the property and make a 

purchase. Plaintiff, could not locate a handicap ramp. The only ramp visible to the Plaintiff 

was not marked handicap and was blocked by pool supplies. There were no signs to direct 

the Plaintiff to the handicap ramp. Defendant Abe’s Pools’ has a black mat directly in front 

of the front doors that blends into the black parking lot asphalt and is not clearly visible to 

patrons. Because pool supplies was blocking the sidewalk, Plaintiff was forced to attempt 

to go up the sidewalk towards the front entrance immediately in front of the front entrance. 

As Plaintiff attempted to walk up the side walk to the front entrance he slipped and fell 

causing serious injury. 

52. Defendants, individually, breached their duty of care to their patrons when 

they acted negligently in failing to take action to protect patrons against the presence of a 

foreseen hazard posing a threat of injury to their business patrons. 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 9 of 14
-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence as foresaid, 

Plaintiff suffered general and special damages for which Defendants are liable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order: 

a. Declaring that Defendants are in violation of the ADA; 

b. Granting a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction prohibiting 

Defendants from conducting business at the shopping center until such time as the existing 

barriers to Plaintiff’s access to the properties are removed; 

c. Directing Defendants to remove existing barriers to access and to make 

Defendants’ shopping center accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities as 

required by the ADA; 

d. Awarding attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12205; 

e. Granting Plaintiff such sums as and for general damages in excess of the 

jurisdictional minimum; 

f. Granting Plaintiff such sums as and for special damages as will be proven at 

the time of trial; 

g. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper; and 

h. For trial by jury. 

Dated: March 19, 2018 

CRUZ AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. DSR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

/s/Jessica P. Tinoco . /s/Stephan R.F. Holmquist .

Jessica P. Tinoco, Esq. Stephan R.F. Holmquist, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff William Kando Attorneys for Plaintiff William Kando

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 10 of 14
 

 EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 11 of 14
8-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Pag
8-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Pag
3/19/2018 15240 N Cave Creek Rd - Google Maps

https://www.google.com/maps/place/15242+N+Cave+Creek+Rd,+Phoenix,+AZ+85032/@33.6256128,-112.0306339,3a,30y,84.28h,91.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5OpUNCvxZeCahgqSsQ0XRQ!2e0!7i1...

Image capture: Aug 2017 © 2018 Google

Phoenix, Arizona

Google, Inc.

Street View - Aug 2017

15240 N Cave Creek Rd

Case 2:18-cv-00881-JJT Document 1 Filed 03/19/18 Page 14 of 14