Document text
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SALVADOR SEGOVIA , JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
vs. )
) Case No. 4:23-CV-00122
B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , )
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
COME S NOW, SALVADOR SEGOVIA , JR., by and through the undersigned counsel,
and files this , his Complaint against Defendant , B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , pursuant to th e
Americans with Disabilities Act, 4 2 U.S.C. § 12181 et se q. (“AD A”) and the ADA’s
Accessibil ity Guidelines, 28 C. F.R. Part 36 (“ADAAG”). In support thereof, Plaintiff
respectfully shows this Court as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This Court has original jurisdic tion over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331
and 134 3 for P laintiff’s claims pursuant t o 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq ., based upon Defendant ’s
failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the ADA .
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff , SALVADOR SEGOVIA , JR. (hereinafter “Plaintiff ”) is, and has been at
all times relevant to the insta nt matter, a natural person res iding in Houston , Texas (Harris
County).
3. Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the ADA.
4. Plaintiff is required to traverse in a wheelchair and is substantially limited in Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 21
2 performin g one or mor e majo r life activities, including but not limit ed to: walking and standing.
5. Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes.
6. In addition to being a customer of the public accommodation on the Property,
Plaintiff is also an independent advocat e for the rights of similarly situated disable d 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. Her
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 demonstrate the plausibility of Plaintiff returning to the Prope rty once the barriers to
access identified in this Complaint are removed in order to strengthen the already existing
standing to confer jurisdiction upon this Court so an injunction can be issued correcting the
numerous ADA violations on this property. (“Advocacy Purposes ”).
7. Defendant, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC (hereinaft er “B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC ”), is a
California limited liability corporation that transacts busin ess in the State of Texas and within
this ju dicial district .
8. Defendant, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , may be prope rly served with proc ess for
servic e via its Registered Agent , to wit: c/o First Corporate Solutions, Inc. , Registered Agent,
3610 -2 Josey Lane, Suite 223, Carrollton, TX 75007 .
FACTUAL ALL EGA TIONS
9. On or about November 30, 2022, Plain tiff was a customer at “Crafty Crab ,” a
business located at 211 Cypress Creek Parkway, Houston, TX 77090 , referenced herein as
“Crafty Crab ”. Attach ed is a photo graph documen ting Plaintif f’s visit to the Propert y. See
Exhibit 1. Also attached is a copy of the receipt documenting Plaintiff ’s purchas es as a customer Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 21
3 at the Crafty Crab on November 30 , 2022 . See Receipt attached as Exhibit 2.
10. Defendant, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , is the owner or co-owner of the real
prope rty and impr ovem ents that Crafty Crab is situated upo n and that is the subject of this action,
refere nced herein as the “Propert y.”
11. Plaintiff lives 12 miles from the Property.
12. In addition to wanting to return to the Crafty Crab as a customer , Plaintiff would
also desire to return to the Property to be a customer of Lasagna House III but is currently
dissuaded from doing so due to the continuing barriers to access at the Property which make it
difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff t o traverse the Prope rty.
13. Furthermore, this Property also contains the closest Harris County Public Health
Depart ment station to Plaintiff ’s residence.
14. Plaintiff’s access to the busi ness(es) located 211 Cypress Creek Park way,
Houston, TX 77090 , Harris Coun ty Pro perty Appraiser’s property identific ation numbe r:
1385630010001 (“the P roperty”), and/or full a nd equal enjoyme nt of the goods, services, f oods,
drink s, facilities , privileges, adva ntages a nd/or ac commo dations offe red there in wer e denied
and/or li mited because of his disabili ties, and he will be denied and/o r limited in the f uture unless
and until D efendant, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , is compel led to remove the physical barriers to
access a nd correct t he ADA v iolations t hat exist at the Prop erty, including those s et forth in this
Compl aint.
15. Defendant , B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , as property owner, is responsible f or
complying with the A DA for both the ext erior portions an d int erior por tions of the Property.
Even i f there is a lease between Defen dant, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC and the te nant allocat ing
responsibilitie s for ADA compliance within the unit the tena nt oper ates, that lease is only Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 3 of 21
4 between the prop erty owner an d the tenan t and d oes not abro gate the Defendant ’s indepe ndent
require ment t o comply wit h the ADA for the ent ire Proper ty it owns, in cludin g the inter ior
porti ons of the Property wh ich a re public accomm odations. See 28 CFR § 36.201(b) .
16. Plaint iff has vi sited the Prop erty at least once before as a cu stom er and ad vocate
for th e disa bled. Pl aintiff intends on revisiting the Property wi thin six months after the bar riers
to ac cess detail ed in this Com plaint are removed and the Property is accessibl e again. T he
purpose of the revisit is to be a return custom er, to de termine if an d when the Prop erty is made
accessible and for Advo cacy Purpos es.
17. Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Proper ty to pu rchase goods and /or services as a
return customer living in th e near v icinity as well as for Adv ocacy Purposes but does not inten d
to re-expose himse lf to the ongoi ng barriers to a ccess and engage in a futile gesture of visiti ng
the public accommo dation k nown to Plaintiff to have numero us and con tinuing barriers to
access.
18. Plaintiff travelle d to the Prop erty as a custom er and as an independent advocate
for the disabl ed, encountered the barri ers to acces s the Property that are d etailed in this
Complain t, engaged those barri ers, suffered l egal harm and legal injury, a nd will contin ue to
suffer such harm and injury as a res ult of the illegal barriers to ac cess present at the Property.
19. Although P laintiff did not personally encou nter each and every barrier to access
identified i n Plaintiff ’s Compl aint, Plaintiff became awa re of all identifi ed barri ers prior to filing
the Complai nt an d bec ause Plain tiff intend s on revisiting the Property as a custom er and
advocate for the disabled within six months or sooner after the barriers to access are remo ved, it
is likely th at despite not actually enco untering a particular barrier to access on one vi sit, Plain tiff
may encounte r a different barrier t o access identified in the complaint in a sub sequent visit as, Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 4 of 21
5 for ex ample, one accessible par king space may not be ava ilable and he would need to use an
alternative accessible parkin g space in th e future on his subs equent visi t. As such, all barriers to
access iden tified in the Complaint must be removed in order to ensure Pl aintiff will not be
exposed to barrie rs to acce ss and leg ally prote cted injury.
20. Plain tiff’s inability to f ully access the Pr opert y and the stores within in a saf e
manner and in a manne r which inhibits the free and equal enjoyment of the goo ds and services
offer ed at the Prope rty, both now and into the foreseeabl e future, constitutes an in jury in f act as
recognized by Congress and is historically v iewed by Federal Courts as an injury in fact.
COU NT I
VIOLATION S OF THE ADA AND ADAAG
21. On July 26, 1990, Congres s ena cted the American s with Disabili ties Act 4 2
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
22. Congress foun d, among other things , that:
(i) some 43,000, 000 Ame rican s have one o r more physical or m ental
disabilities , and this num ber is increasing as the po pulation as a whole is
grow ing older;
(ii) histo rically, societ y has tend ed to isolate and se grega te individual s with
disabilities, and, despite some improve ments, such forms of dis crimination
against individuals with d isabilities co ntinue to be a serious and pervasive
social probl em;
(iii) discrimina tion against in dividuals with disabilities pe rsists in such cri tical
areas as employ ment, housin g publ ic accommodations, education,
transportation, commu nication, recreati on, institutio nalization, health
services , voting, and access t o pub lic services;
(iv) individuals with disa bilities continually enco unter various forms o f
discriminat ion, includi ng out right intentional e xclusion, th e discriminatory
effects o f architectu ral, transport ation, and communication ba rriers,
overprotective rules and policies, f ailure to make modi ficati ons to existing
facilities and practic es, excl usionary qual ification st andard s and c riteria,
segregation, an d relegation to less er service, progra ms, activities , benefits,
jobs, or other opportunities; and Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 5 of 21
6
(v) the continuing exis tence of unfair and unnec essary discriminatio n and
prejudice de nies peo ple with disa bilities the oppor tunity to compete o n an
equal b asis and to pursue t hose opportunities for which our free society is
justifiabl y famous, and costs th e Uni ted States billio ns of dollars i n
unnecess ary expenses resulti ng fr om dependency and non -productivity .
42 U.S.C. § 121 01(a)(1 ) - (3), (5) and (9).
23. Congress explicitly s tated that the pur pose of the ADA was to:
(i) provide a clear and comprehensive nat ional mandate for the elimination of
discrimina tion against individ uals with disabili ties;
(ii) provide a clea r, strong, c onsist ent, en forceable st andards addr essing
discriminatio n against individu als with disab ilities; and
* * * * *
(iv) invoke the sweep o f con gressional author ity, including the power to
enforce the fourt eenth amendment an d to reg ulate commerc e, in order to
address the major areas of discrim ination faced day -to-day by people wit h
disabilities .
42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)( 2) and (4).
24. The cong ressional legislation provided places of public accomm odation one a nd
a half years fr om the e nactment of t he ADA to im plemen t its requirements.
25. The effect ive date of Title II I of the ADA was J anuary 26, 199 2 (or January 26,
1993 if a defendant has 10 or f ewer employees and gro ss receipts of $500 ,000 o r less). 42 U.S.C.
§ 1218 1; 28 C.F.R. § 36.508 (a).
26. The Prop erty is a p ublic a ccommod ation and se rvice establ ishment.
27. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. § 1 2134(a), on July 26, 1991, the
Department of Just ice a nd Office o f Atto rney Ge neral pr omul gated federal regulations to
implement the r equireme nts of the ADA. 28 C.F.R . Part 36.
28. Public accomm odations wer e required to confor m to these regulat ions by Januar y Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 6 of 21
7 26, 19 92 (or by January 26, 1993 if a defendant has 10 or fewer emplo yees an d gross receipts o f
$500,000 or less). 42 U .S.C. § 12181 et seq .; 28 C.F.R. § 36.508(a).
29. The Property must be, but is no t, in compliance wi th the ADA and ADA AG.
30. Plaintiff has a ttempted to, and has to the ex tent possible, acce ssed the Property in
his capacity as a customer at the Property as well as an ind epen dent adv ocate for the disabled ,
but cou ld not fully do so because of his disabilities resu lting from the physical barriers to access,
dangerous conditio ns and ADA violatio ns that exist at the Property that pr eclude and /or limit his
access to the Property a nd/or th e goods, s ervices, facili ties, privileges, advanta ges and/or
accommodations offere d therein, includi ng those barri ers, conditio ns and ADA violat ions more
specifica lly set forth in this Complai nt.
31. Plaintiff intends to visit the Property again in the very ne ar futu re as a customer
and as an independent advo cate for the disabled, in order to utilize all of the goods, ser vices,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accom modation s commonl y offer ed at the Property, but
will be unable to fully do s o be cause of his disabili ty and the physica l barri ers to acces s,
dangerous conditions and ADA violations that ex ist at the Property that preclude and/or lim it his
access to the Property an d/or the goods, services , facilities, privileges, adva ntage s and/or
accommodatio ns offered th erein, inclu ding t hose ba rriers, cond itions and ADA violations more
specifically set forth in this Complaint .
32. Defen dant, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , has discriminat ed against Plaintiff (and
others with disabilities) by den ying his acces s to, and full and equal enjoy ment of the goods,
services, facil ities, privileges, a dvantages and/or accommodatio ns of the Property, as prohibit ed
by, and by failing to r emove arc hitec tural barri ers as require d by, 42 U.S .C. §
12182(b)(2)(A)( iv). Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 7 of 21
8 33. Defendant , B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , will contin ue to discrimina te against
Plain tiff and other s with disabilities unless and until Defendant , B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , is
compelled to remove all physical barrie rs that exis t at the Propert y, including those specifically
set forth herei n, and make the Prop erty acce ssible to and usab le by Plain tiff and o ther persons
with disabi lities.
34. A speci fic lis t of unlawfu l physic al barriers, dange rous conditions and ADA
violations which Plaintiff experi enced and/or observed , or was made aware of pri or to the filing
of this Comp laint, that preclu ded and/or limit ed Pl aintiff’s access to the Property and th e full and
equal enjoyment of the goods, serv ices, f acilities, privileges, advantag es and accommodatio ns of
the Property incl ude, but are no t limited to:
ACCESSIBLE ELEM ENT S:
i. In front of Unit 211D, the two accessible parking spaces and associated access
aisles have a running slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of Section 502.4 of
the 2010 ADAAG standards and are not level. This barrier to access would
make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle
while parked at the Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair may roll down the slope
while entering or exit ing the vehicle.
ii. In front of Unit 211D, the access aisle has Section s with a cross slope in
excess of 1:48 in vio lation of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards
and is not level. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult
for Plaintif f to enter and exit the vehicle as a level surface is needed so the
wheelchair does not tip over and injure Plain tiff as excessive cross -slopes Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 8 of 21
9 increases the likelihood of Plaintiff’s whe elchair tipping over on its side and
injuring Plaintiff.
iii. Nearest Unit 217A, the ground surfaces of one of the accessible spaces have a
sewer drain that creates surfaces that have ver tical rises in excess of ¼ (one
quarter) inch in height, are not stable or slip resistant, have broken or unstable
surfaces or otherwise fail t o comply with Section s 502.4, 302 and 303 of the
2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would make it dange rous and
difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.
iv. Neare st Unit 217A, the a ccessible parking space has cross slopes in exces s of
1:48 in violation of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and is not
level. This barrier to access woul d make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff
to enter and exit the vehic le 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.
v. In front of Lasagna House, due to an inad equate policy of parking lot
maintenance or a lack thereof, there ar e two accessible parking spaces that are
not adequately marked so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible
parking spaces and the presence of an access aisle and is therefore in viol ation
of Section s 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 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 9 of 21
10 vi. In front of Lasagna House, one of th e 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.
vii. In front of Lasagna House, the access aisle adjacent to the accessible parking
space has a slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of Section 502.4 of the 2010
ADAAG standards and are not level. This barrier to access would make it
dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter th eir vehicle while
parked at the Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair may roll down the slope while
entering or exit ing the vehicle.
viii. Nearest Lasagna House, the Property has an accessible ramp leading from the
accessible parking space s to the accessible entran ces 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 acce ss the
units of the Property because when ramps are too steep (more than 1:12) it
requires too much physical arm strain to wheel up the ramp and increases the
likelihood of the wheelchair falling backwards and Plaintiff being injured.
ix. In front of Unit 196 0, the access aisle to the accessible parking space is not
level due to the presenc e of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violation
of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barri er to access would
make it dangerous and difficult for Plain tiff 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. Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 10 of 21
11 x. In front of Unit 1960 , the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into
the access aisle of the accessib le parking space in violation of Section 406.5 of
the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This b arrier 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.
xi. In front of Unit 1960 , the access aisle adjacen t to the accessible parking space
has a slope in excess of 1:48 in violation of Section 502.4 of the 2010
ADAAG s tandards and are not level. This barrier to access would mak e it
dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while
parked at the Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair may roll down the slope while
entering or exiting the vehicle.
xii. In front of Unit 1960 , the access aisle has cross slope s in exc ess of 1:48 in
violation of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and is not le vel.
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 ove r and injure Plaintiff as excessive cross -slopes increases the
likelihood of Plaint iff’s wheelchair tipping over on its side and injuring
Plaintiff.
xiii. In front of Unit 1960 , the access aisle has a v ertical rise in excess of ¼ inch
and is in violation of Section s 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 Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 11 of 21
12 make it difficult for Plaintiff to travel to the public acc ommodations offered at
the Property as the vertical rise could cause the tire of th e wheelchair to get
snagged or impede movement.
xiv. In front of the entrance to Unit 221E, two of the four accessible parking
spaces is not located on the shortest distance to t he accessible route leading to
the accessible entrances , due to the lack of a nearb y accessible ramp, in
violation of Section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to
access would make it difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff to access the unit s
of the Property from these accessible parking spaces as the far location
increase s the likelihood of traversing into the vehicular way and getting struck
by a vehicle or encountering a barrier t o access which stops Plaintiff from
accessing the public acc ommodations offered at the Property.
xv. In front of the entrance to Unit 221E, the two accessible parking spaces
referenced in (xiii) do not have a marked access aisle in violation of Section
502.3.3 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access makes it nearly
impossible for an individual in a wheelchair to enter and exit their vehic le at
this accessible parking space due to the close pr esence of parked vehicles on
either side of the accessible parking space not providing enough room for the
wheelchair, this eliminates the accessible route from this accessible parking
space.
xvi. In front of the entrance to Unit 221E, the two accessible parkin g spaces
referenced in (xiii) lack an accessible route fro m the accessible parking space s
to the accessible entrance of the Property , due to the lack of an access aisle, in Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 12 of 21
13 violation of Section 208.3.1 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to
access wo uld make it difficult for Plaintiff to access the units of the Property.
xvii. In front of the entrance to Unit 221E, d ue to an inadequate policy of parking
lot maintenance or a lack thereof, the four access ible parking space s are not
adequately marked so as to adequately gauge the width of accessible parking
spaces an d the presence of an access aisle and is therefore in violation of
Section s 502.1 and 502.2 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to
access would make it difficult for Plaintiff to locate an acce ssible parking
space and may cause other vehicles to unkn owingly park in the accessible
parking space decreasing the available width to Plaintiff.
xviii. In front of Unit 221A , the access aisle adjacent to t he accessible parking space
has a slope in excess of 1:4 8 in violation of Section 502.4 of the 2010
ADAAG standar ds and are not level. This barrier to access would make it
dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while
parked a t the Property as Plaintiff’s wheelchair may roll down t he slope while
entering or exiting the vehicle.
xix. In front of Unit 221A , the access aisle to the accessible parking space is not
level due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in vi olation
of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. Th is barrier to access would
make it dangerous and difficul t 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 unle vel surface. Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 13 of 21
14 xx. In front of Unit 221A , the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into
the access aisle of t he accessible parking space in violation of Section 406.5 of
the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to access would make it dangerous
and diff icult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle whil e parked at the
Property as the lift from the van may res t upon the ramp and create an unlevel
surface.
xxi. In front of Unit 221A , the Property has an accessible ramp leading from the
accessible parking s pace to the accessible entrances with a slope exceeding
1:12 in violation of Section 405.2 of the 2010 ADAAG stan dards. This barrier
to access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to access the
units of the Property because when ramps are to o steep (more than 1:12) it
requires too much physical arm strain to wheel up the ramp and increases the
likeliho od of the wheelchair falling backwards and Plaintiff being injured.
xxii. In front of Unit 221A , the access aisle has vertical rise s in excess of ¼ inch
and is in violation of Section s 303.2 and 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG
standards. This barrier to access would ma ke it dangerous and difficult for
Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property as well as
make it difficult for Plain tiff to travel to the public accommodations of fered at
the Property as the vertical rise could cause the tire of the wheelchair to get
snagged or impede movement.
xxiii. In front of Unit 221A , the accessible parking space has a slope in excess of
1:48 in violatio n of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards and are not
level. This barrier to access would make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 14 of 21
15 to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the Property as Plaintiff’s
wheelchair may roll down the slope whil e entering or exiting the vehicle.
xxiv. In front of Unit 221A , the accessible parking space has a cross slope in exces s
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 diffic ult for Plaintiff
to enter and exit the vehicl e 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
Plainti ff.
xxv. Nearest Unit 211H , the access aisle to the two accessible parking space s 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 dangerou s and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and ente r their vehicle
while parked at the Property as the lift from the v an may rest upon the ramp
and create an unlevel surface.
xxvi. Nearest Unit 211H , the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into the
access aisle of the accessible parking space s in viol ation of Section 406.5 of
the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier t o 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 unlev el
surface.
xxvii. Nearest Unit 211H , due to a gap in the pavement reveali ng an opening of
about an inch between the accessible ramp and the accessible route , the Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 15 of 21
16 ground surfaces of the accessible route have vertical rises in excess of ¼ (one
quarter) inch in he ight, are not stable or slip resistant, have broken or unstable
surfaces or otherwise fail to comply with Section s 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 th e Property.
xxviii. In front of Crafty Crab, one of the two accessible parki ng spaces is missing an
identification sign in violation of Section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG
standards. This barrier to access would make it dif ficult for Plaintiff to locate
an accessible parking space.
xxix. In front of Crafty Crab, the two access aisle s have unlevel surfaces in
violation of Section s 303.2 and 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This
barrier to access would make it dangerous and diffic ult for Plaintiff to exit and
enter their vehicle while parked at the Property as well as make it difficult for
Plaintiff to tra vel to the public accommodations offered at the Property as the
vertical rise could cause the tire of the wheelchair to get snag ged or impede
movement.
xxx. In front of Crafty Crab, the access aisle s serving the two accessible parking
space s are not at the same level as the parking space it serves in violation of
Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. This barrier to access would
make it difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle if parked at that
accessible parking space.
xxxi. In fro nt of Crafty Cr ab, for the two accessible parking spaces, there is a
vertical rise in excess of ¼ inch at the threshold of where the spaces mee t their Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 16 of 21
17 associated access aisles and are in violation of Section s 303.2 and 502.4 of the
2010 ADAAG standards. Th is barrier to a ccess would make it dangerous and
difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while parked at the
Property as well a s make it difficult for Plaintiff to travel to the public
accommodations offered at the Property.
xxxii. In front of Uni t 235, the acce ss aisle to the accessible parking space s is not
level due to the presence of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violatio n
of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This barrier to access would
make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to ex it and enter their vehicle
while parked at the Property as the lift from the van may rest upon the ramp
and create an unlevel su rface.
xxxiii. In front of Unit 235 , the accessible curb ramp is improperly protruding into
the access aisle of the acce ssible parking space s 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.
xxxiv. In front of Unit 235A , the access aisle to the accessible parking space s is not
level due to the prese nce of an accessible ramp in the access aisle in violation
of Section 502.4 of the 2010 ADAAG standards. This bar rier to access would
make it dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle
while parked at the Property as the lift fro m the van may rest upon the ramp
and create an unlevel surface. Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 17 of 21
18 xxxv. In front of Unit 235A , the accessible curb ramp is improperly p rotruding into
the access aisle of the accessible parking space s in violation of Section 406.5
of the 2010 ADAAG Standards. Thi s barrier to access would make it
dangerous and difficult for Plaintiff to exit and enter their vehicle while
parked at the Prop erty as the lift from the van may rest upon the ramp and
create an unlevel surface.
xxxvi. The Property lacks an accessible route from the sidewalk near Crafty Crab to
the accessible entrance s of the Property in violation of Section 206.2.1 of the
2010 ADAAG stan dards. This barrier to access would make it difficult for
Plaintiff to utilize public transportation to access the public accomm odations
located on the Property.
xxxvii. Defendant fails to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that al l
facilities ar e readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals .
35. The vi olations enumera ted above may not be a complete l ist of t he barriers,
conditions or violations e ncount ered by P laintiff and/or which exist at the Property.
36. Plaintif f requires an inspe ction of the Property in order to determin e all of the
discriminat ory conditions presen t at the Property in violation of the ADA .
37. The removal o f the ph ysical barrier s, dang erous con ditions and ADA viola tions
alleged herein is readily ac hievable and can be accompli shed and carried out without significant
difficulty or expense . 42 U.S.C . § 12 182(b)(2)(A)(iv); 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9); 2 8 C.F.R. § 36.30 4.
38. All of the violati ons all eged here in are r eadily achiev able to modify to the
Property i nto compliance with t he ADA. Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 18 of 21
19 39. Upon information and g ood faith be lief, the remo val of th e phys ical barriers an d
dangerous con ditions present at the Property is readily achieva ble because the natur e and cos t of
the modification s are relativ ely low.
40. Upon informa tion and good faith belief, the removal of t he ph ysical barri ers and
dangerous conditions present at the Property is readily a chievable because Def enda nt, B.H. 211
FM 1960, LLC , has the finan cial resource s to make the necessary mo difications . According to
the Property Appra iser, the collective Apprais ed value of the Property i s $5,881,404 .00.
41. The remo val of t he physica l barrier s and dangerous conditions present at the
Property is also readily ach ievable because Defend ant has available to it a $5,000 .00 tax credit
and up to a $1 5,000.0 0 tax de duction fr om the IRS for spending mone y on accessibility
modi fication s.
42. Upon inform ation and good faith belief, the Property ha s been altered since 2010 .
43. In ins tance s where the 201 0 ADAAG standards do not apply , the 1991 ADAAG
standards apply, and all of t he alleged violations set forth herein can b e modified to com ply w ith
the 1991 ADAAG stan dards .
44. Plaintiff is witho ut adequate r emedy at law, is sufferin g irrepa rable harm, and
reasonably anticipates t hat he will continue to suf fer irreparabl e harm unless a nd until D efend ant,
B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , is required to remove the ph ysical barriers, d angerous condit ions and
ADA violation s that ex ist at the Property, including those alleged herein.
45. Plaintiff’s reque sted rel ief ser ves the public i nterest.
46. The benefit to Plaintiff and the public of the relief ou tweighs any resulti ng
detriment to Defendant , B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC . Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 19 of 21
20 47. Plaintiff’s co unsel is enti tled to recove r its re asonable attor ney’s fees and costs of
litigation from D efendant, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § § 12188 and 12 205.
48. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), t his Cou rt is provided authority to grant
injunct ive relief to Plain tiff, incl uding the issuan ce of a n Order directin g Defe ndant , B.H. 211
FM 1960, LLC , to modify the Property to the ext ent req uired by the ADA.
WHE REFORE, Pla intiff prays as follows:
(a) That the Court find Defen dant, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC , in violatio n of the ADA
and ADAAG;
(b) That the Court issue a per manen t injunction enjoining Defendant, B.H. 21 1 FM
1960, LLC , from continuing their discrimin atory pra ctices;
(c) That the C ourt is sue an Order re quirin g Defenda nt, B.H. 211 FM 1960, LLC to (i)
remo ve the physical barriers t o access and (ii) alter the Property to make it readi ly
acces sible to and useab le by indiv iduals with disabilities t o the e xtent req uired by
the ADA;
(d) That the Cour t award Plaintiff his reasonable attorne ys' fees, litigation e xpens es
and costs; and Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 20 of 21
21 (e) That the Court grant such f urther relief as de emed just and equitable in light of the
circumstance s
Dated: January 12, 2023
Resp ectfu lly su bmitted,
/s/ Douglas S. Schapi ro
Douglas S. S chapiro , Esq.
Southern Di strict of Texas ID No. 3 182479
The S chapiro Law Group, P.L
7301-A W. Palmetto Par k Rd., #100A
Boca Rato n, FL 33433
Tel: (561) 807-7388
Email: schap iro@schap irolaw group.com
Case 4:23-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed on 01/12/23 in TXSD Page 21 of 21