Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. Et Al

Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:#:18-2
#:
6-21 Filed:
Filed: 09/02/15
08/14/15 Page
Page 11 of
of 64
4 PageID
PageID#:1
#:93
#:177
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY MIZERK,
Plaintiff
v.
LASALLE FLOWERS, INC. and
731 LASALLE LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 15-cv-7131
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendants LaSalle Flowers, Inc. (LaSalle Flowers) and 731 LaSalle LLC (collectively,
Defendants), by and through their attorneys, Steve A. Miller and Scott C. Fanning of Fisher &
Phillips LLP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1441, and 1446, file this Notice of Removal to transfer
this cause from the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, in which it is now pending as Case
No. 2015-L-007231, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In support
of their Notice of Removal, Defendants state as follows:
1.
This civil action, entitled Mary Mizerk v. LaSalle Flowers, Inc., et al., was filed on
July 16, 2015,1 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, bearing Case No. 2015-L007231. Defendants counsel was provided a copy of the Complaint on July 16, 2015 via an e-mail
Note that between May 12, 2015 and June 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed two additional ADA Title III cases in
the Northern District of Illinois and the Circuit Court of Cook County. Additionally, between April 30,
2015 and August 11, 2015, Plaintiffs counsel filed Fifteen ADA Title III cases in the Northern District of
Illinois and Circuit Court of Cook County. Defendants raise this issue because, despite its laudable
purposes, Title III of the ADA has often been subject to abuse. See, e.g., Molski v. Kahn Winery, 405 F.
Supp. 2d 1160, 1164-1168 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (holding that litigation history is relevant in determining
standing); Brother v. Miami Hotel Inv.s, LTD., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1233 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (commenting
on the proliferation of ADA Title III lawsuits and abuse of Title III to collect attorneys fees); Rodriguez v.
Investco, LLC, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1281 (M.D. Fla. 2004) (noting the birth of a cottage industry).
1
FPDOCS 30934671.1
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:#:18-2
#:
6-21 Filed:
Filed: 09/02/15
08/14/15 Page
Page 22 of
of 64
4 PageID
PageID#:2
#:94
#:178
by Plaintiffs counsel John Steele. The Complaint and Summons have not been served upon
Defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(a), a copy of all pleadings sent to Defendants is attached
as Exhibit A. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is timely, as it was filed within
thirty days after Defendants first were provided a copy of the Complaint.
2.
Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that she suffers from a disability and was purportedly
denied access to LaSalle Flowers shop on May 6, 2015 due to an architectural barrier. See Exhibit
A, Complaint.2
3.
Plaintiffs Complaint is removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and
1441(a) because of federal question jurisdiction; Plaintiff is asserting a cause of action arising under
the laws of the United States, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et
seq. See Compl. 24-32.
4.
The remainder of Plaintiffs claims are removable to federal court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1441(c). In addition, Plaintiffs Illinois state law claims are based on the same alleged visit
to LaSalle Flowers shop and the exact same set of operative facts. See Compl. 12-23, 33.
5.
Moreover, the joinder and removal of Plaintiffs Illinois state law claims will be in
the interests of judicial economy as it will allow this matter to be resolved at one time, instead of
through companion litigation before this Court and a Illinois state court.
8.
Removal to this particular venue is proper because Cook County, State of Illinois, is
located within the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiffs Complainant will be cited to hereinafter as Compl. __.
-2FPDOCS 30934671.1
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:#:18-2
#:
6-21 Filed:
Filed: 09/02/15
08/14/15 Page
Page 33 of
of 64
4 PageID
PageID#:3
#:95
#:179
9.
This Notice of Removal will be filed promptly with the state court, as required by 28
U.S.C. 1446(d).
10.
By copy of this document and in accordance with the Certificate of Service,
Defendants are providing notice to all parties in this action of the filing of this Notice of Removal.
WHEREFORE, Defendants give notice of the removal of this action from Cook County
Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Dated: August 14, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
By:
-3FPDOCS 30934671.1
s/ Steve A. Miller
Steve A. Miller
Scott C. Fanning
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 346-8061 Phone
(312) 346-3179 Facsimile
smiller@laborlawyers.com
sfanning@laborlawyers.com
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:#:18-2
#:
6-21 Filed:
Filed: 09/02/15
08/14/15 Page
Page 44 of
of 64
4 PageID
PageID#:4
#:96
#:180
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that, on August 14, 2015, I filed the foregoing Notice of Removal with the Clerk of
Court for the Northern District of Illinois and caused a copy of same to be service via First Class
U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, upon:
John Steele
Accessibility Law Group
500 Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
s/ Steve A. Miller
Attorney for Defendants
LaSalle Flowers, Inc. and
731 LaSalle LLC
-4FPDOCS 30934671.1
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:#:
#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page51of
of64
14PageID
PageID#:97
#:181
#:5
EXHIBIT A
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:#:
#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page62of
of64
14PageID
PageID
#:98
#:182
#:611:45 AM
7/16/2015
2015-L-007231
CALENDAR: A
PAGE 1 of 9
CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LAW DIVISION
COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION CLERK DOROTHY BROWN
MARY MIZERK,
Case No. _______________
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT
LASALLE FLOWERS, INC.; and 731
LASALLE LLC,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Mary Mizerk, by and through the undersigned counsel, brings this action against
Defendants LaSalle Flowers, Inc., an Illinois business corporation; and 731 LaSalle LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
12181, et seq. (the ADA) and its implementing regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights
Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. (the IHRA) and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendants for failing to design,
construct, and/or own or operate facilities that are fully accessible to, and independently usable
by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the retail
shop known as La Salle Flowers, even though such removal is readily achievable.
2.
The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the retail flower shop known
as La Salle Flowers, located at 731 N La Salle Drive, Chicago, IL 60654.

3.
Defendants failure to provide equal access to La Salle Flowers violates the
mandates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodations goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.
4.
Defendants conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the law.
Defendant LaSalle Flowers, Inc. was given advance notice that its facilities contained accessibil-1-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:#:
#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page73of
of64
14PageID
PageID#:99
#:183
#:7
ity barriers through a letter sent on May 13, 2015, prior to the initiation of the instant suit for relief. Despite being given notice, Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to
remedy the discriminatory barriers at their facilities.
5.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants facilities violate feder-
al law and an injunction requiring Defendants to make modifications to the facilities so that they
are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with disabilities. Plaintiff further
requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter for a period to be determined to ensure
that Defendants continue to comply with the requirements of the ADA and IHRA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 2 of 9
6.
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to Title III of the
ADA, and for damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief pursuant to the IHRA. This Court
has concurrent jurisdiction over the federal cause of action and has original jurisdiction over the
state cause of action pursuant to 775 ILCS 5/10-102.
7.
Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because De-
fendants are located and transact business within this judicial district and have sufficient contacts
to be subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and because this is the judicial district in which the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
PARTIES
8.
Plaintiff Mary Mizerk is a resident of the city of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff Miz-
erk suffers from, and all times relevant hereto has suffered from, a legal disability as defined by
the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2), and the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/1-103(I).
9.
Plaintiff Mary Mizerk suffers from osteoarthritis. She is substantially limited in
performing several major life activities, including but not limited to walking and standing. She is
required to use wheelchair for mobility. As a person with a disability, she has a personal interest
in having full and equal access to places of public accommodation and to the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages or other things offered therein.
-2-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page
Page884of
of
of64
64
14PageID
PageID
PageID#:100
#:184
#:8
10.
Defendant LaSalle Flowers, Inc., an Illinois business corporation, is the operator
of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the retail flower shop,
La Salle Flowers, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA and ILCS,
located at the street address of 731 N La Salle Drive, Chicago, IL 60654.
11.
Defendant 731 LaSalle LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, is the owner of
the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the retail flower shop,
La Salle Flowers, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA and ILCS,
located at the street address of 731 N La Salle Drive, Chicago, IL 60654.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 3 of 9
12.
On or around May 6, 2015, Plaintiff Mizerk attempted to visit La Salle Flowers,
which is located approximately three city blocks from her apartment.

13.
Upon arrival, Plaintiff Mizerk could not find an accessible entrance.
14.
The doorway at the front entrance to La Salle Flowers was approximately five
inches above the sidewalk level. A photograph in Exhibit A to this Complaint shows the doorway of the entrance to La Salle Flowers.
15.
No signage indicated the existence of an accessible entrance or a route to an ac-
cessible entrance from the inaccessible front entrance.

16.
In light of the architectural barriers at La Salle Flowers, Plaintiff Mizerk is de-
terred from visiting La Salle Flowers in the future. She is unable to enter La Salle Flowers.
Plaintiff Mizerk would like to be able to patronize La Salle Flowers, but these architectural
barriers deter her from doing so. She plans to return and patronize La Salle Flowers when she
learns that the premises have been made fully accessible to persons who use wheelchairs for mobility.
17.
Plaintiff Mizerk attempted to access Defendants premises, but could not do so
independently on a full and equal basis because of her disabilities, due to the physical barriers to
access and violations of the ADA and IHRA that exist at Defendants premises. As a result of
Defendants non-compliance with the ADA and IHRA, Plaintiff Mizerk cannot independently
-3-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page
Page995of
of
of64
64
14PageID
PageID
PageID#:101
#:185
#:9
access the facilities and/or is excluded from full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations offered therein.
FACT ALLEGATIONS
18.
Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff Mizerk on the basis of her disabil-
ities by failing to comply with the requirements of the ADA, the Americans With Disabilities
Act Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to La Salle Flowers. A
specific, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at La
Salle Flowers which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facilities and/or to
enjoy the goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein on a
full and equal basis, includes the following:
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 4 of 9
a. La Salle Flowers does not have an accessible public entrance, in violation of

ADAAG 206.4.1.
b. The La Salle Flowers public entrance has a change in level greater than half an
inch but does not have a ramp, in violation of ADAAG 404.2.5 and 303.4.
c. To the extent that La Salle Flowers has an accessible entrance, the entrance is
not marked as accessible, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.
d. To the extent that La Salle Flowers has an accessible entrance, the route from
the inaccessible entrance to the accessible entrance (if any), is not marked with directional signage, in violation of ADAAG 216.6
19.
The above listing is not to be considered all-inclusive of the barriers and viola-
tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff or which exist at La Salle Flowers.
20.
In order to fully remedy the discriminatory conditions, Plaintiff requires an in-
spection of La Salle Flowers in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to access and
violations of the ADA, the ADAAG and the ILCS.
21.
Compliance with the ADA standards and the ADAAG is required by 42 U.S.C
12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) because removal of architectural barriers is readily achievable. Compliance

with the ADA standards and the ADAAG is readily achievable by Defendants due to the lack of
-4-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page
Page10
10
6 of
of14
64
64PageID
PageID#:10
#:102
#:186
difficulty and low cost of remedying the above-listed barriers. Some of the above-listed violations can be remedied through the same measures prescribed by federal regulation as examples
of modifications that are readily achievable, including, but not limited to, installing ramps. 28
C.F.R. 36.304(b). Even if installing a permanent ramp would not be readily achievable, Defendants could comply with federal standards by employing a portable ramp. 28 C.F.R.
36.304(e).
22.
As a person with a disability, Plaintiff Mizerk has a personal interest in having
full and equal access to places of public accommodation and to the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages or other things offered therein.
23.
Without injunctive relief, Defendants failure to remove accessibility barriers will
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 5 of 9
continue to cause injury to Plaintiff, who will continue to be deterred from patronizing the facility and will continue to be unable to independently access La Salle Flowers and/or to enjoy the
goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein on a full and
equal basis, in violation of her rights under the ADA.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
24.
Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the above paragraphs.
25.
Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., provides:
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or
operates a place of public accommodation.
26.
Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to
deny individuals with disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations that is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals.
-5-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page
Page11
11
7 of
of14
64
64PageID
PageID#:11
#:103
#:187
27.
Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff and others in that they failed to
make their place of public accommodation fully accessible to persons with disabilities on a full
and equal basis in violation of 42 U.S.C. 12182(a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder,
including the ADAAG, as described above. Plaintiff Mizerk has been denied full and equal access to La Salle Flowers and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit
from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full and
equal basis.
28.
Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their
discriminatory conduct. Defendants violations of the ADA and ADAAG are ongoing.
29.
Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers to full and equal access by
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 6 of 9
Plaintiff Mizerk, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

30.
Plaintiff Mizerk plans to visit La Salle Flowers again in the near future. Plaintiff
is without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm, and reasonably
anticipates that she will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon her planned return visit to La
Salle Flowers unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access
and ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set
forth specifically herein.
31.
This Court has authority under 42 U.S.C. 12188 to grant Plaintiff injunctive re-
lief, including an order requiring Defendants to make La Salle Flowers readily accessible to
and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and
ADAAG, and/or to close La Salle Flowers until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.
32.
Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of this
action, and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs from
Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12205, 12117, and 28 C.F.R. 36.505.
-6-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page
Page12
12
8 of
of14
64
64PageID
PageID#:12
#:104
#:188
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.
33.
34.
775 ILCS 5/5-102 provides:

It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful
discrimination to: Deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of any public place of
accommodation.
35.
and equal basis in violation of the IHRA, as described above. Plaintiff Mizerk has been denied
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 7 of 9
full and equal access to La Salle Flowers and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate
in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a
full and equal basis.
36.
discriminatory conduct. Defendants violations of the IHRA are ongoing.

37.
Plaintiff Mizerk, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

38.
Plaintiff Mizerk plans to visit La Salle Flowers again in the near future. Plaintiff
is without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm, and reasonably
anticipates that she will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon her planned return visit to La
Salle Flowers unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access
39.
This Court has authority under the IHRA to grant Plaintiff injunctive relief, in-
cluding an order requiring Defendants to make La Salle Flowers readily accessible to and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the IHRA, and/or to
close La Salle Flowers until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.
-7-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:#:
18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/14/15Page
Page
Page13
13
9 of
of14
64
64PageID
PageID#:13
#:105
#:189
40.
Defendants, pursuant to 775 ILCS 5/10-102.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
a. That the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that Defendants facilities, at the commencement of the instant suit, are in violation of Title III of the
ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq., and the relevant implementing regulations including the ADAAG, and the IHRA.
b. That the Court issue a permanent injunction, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12188(a)(2),
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 8 of 9
28 C.F.R. 36.504(a) and 775 ILCS 5/10-102 enjoining Defendants from continuing their discriminatory practices, including an order directing Defendants to
make all readily achievable alterations to their facilities so as to remove physical
barriers to access and make their facilities fully accessible to and independently
usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and the
IHRA; and also including an order requiring Defendants to make all reasonable
modifications in policies, practices or procedures necessary to afford all offered
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities on a full and equal basis.
c. That the Court award Plaintiff actual and punitive damages to be paid by Defendants pursuant to 775 ILCS 5/10-102(C)(1).
d. That the Court award Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses,
and costs of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12205, 28 C.F.R. 36.505 and 775 ILCS
5/10-102(C)(2), or as otherwise provided by law; and
e. That the Court issue such other relief as it deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under Title III of the ADA or the IHRA.
-8-
Case:
Case:
Case:1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131Document
Document
Document#:
#:
#:18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
08/14/15
09/02/15Page
Page14
10
14of
of64
14
64PageID
PageID#:106
#:14
#:190
DATED: July 16, 2015
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 9 of 9
/s/ John Steele

John L. Steele (# 44190)
ACCESSIBILITY LAW GROUP
E-mail: jsteele@accessibilitylawgroup.com
Phone: (312) 396-4154
-9-
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Case:
Case:
Case:1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
Document
Document#:
#:
#:18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
08/14/15
09/02/15Page
Page15
11
15of
of64
14
64PageID
PageID
#:107
#:15
#:191
7/16/2015
11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
CALENDAR: A
PAGE 1 of 2
CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LAW DIVISION
CLERK DOROTHY BROWN
EXHIBIT A
7/16/2015 11:45 AM
2015-L-007231
PAGE 2 of 2
Case:
Case:
Case:1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
Document
Document#:
#:
#:18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
08/14/15
09/02/15Page
Page16
12
16of
of64
14
64PageID
PageID#:108
#:16
#:192
2120 - Served Case:

2121 - Served
Case:
Case:1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document#:
#:
#:18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
08/14/15
09/02/15Page
Page17
13
17of
of64
14
64PageID
PageID#:109
#:17
#:193
2220 - Not Served
2221 - Not Served
2320 - Served By Mail
2420 - Served By Publication
(2/18/11) CCG N001
ALIAS - SUMMONS
SUMMONS
LAW
COUNTY DEPARTMENT,
DIVISION
No. 2015-L-007231
MARY MIZERK
(Name all parties)
v.
Defendant Address:
LASALLE FLOWERS, INC.
731 N. LASALLE FLOWER SHOP
CHICAGO, IL 60654
LASALLE FLOWERS, INC.
Summons
To each Defendant:
ALIAS - SUMMONS
SUMMONS
YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of which is
hereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance, and pay the required fee, in the Office of the Clerk of this Court at the
following location:
Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Room
801
,Chicago, Illinois 60602
District 2 - Skokie
5600 Old Orchard Rd.
Skokie, IL 60077
District 3 - Rolling Meadows

2121 Euclid
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
District 4 - Maywood
1500 Maybrook Ave.
Maywood, IL 60153
District 5 - Bridgeview
10220 S. 76th Ave.
Bridgeview, IL 60455
District 6 - Markham
16501 S. Kedzie Pkwy.
Markham, IL 60426
Child Support
28 North Clark St., Room 200
You must file within 30 days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service.
IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF
REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT.
To the officer:
This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, with endorsement
of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, this Summons shall be returned so endorsed.
This Summons may not be served later than 30 days after its date.
44190
Atty. No.:__________________
STEELE LAW FIRM LLC
Name: ________________________________________________
MARY MIZERK
Atty. for: ______________________________________________
161 N CLARK #3200
Address: ______________________________________________
CHICAGO, IL 60601
City/State/Zip: __________________________________________
(312) 893-5888
Telephone: _____________________________________________
Thursday, 16 July
2015
WITNESS, __________________________, ____________
/s DOROTHY BROWN
_____________________________________________
Clerk of Court
Date of service: _______________________, __________
(To be inserted by officer on copy left with defendant
or other person)
Service by Facsimile Transmission will be accepted at: ________________________________________________________________

(Area Code)
(Facsimile Telephone Number)
/s DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
2120 - Served Case:

2121 - Served
Case:
Case:1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07131
Document
Document
Document#:
#:
#:18-2
6-2
1-1Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
08/14/15
09/02/15Page
Page18
14
18of
of64
14
64PageID
PageID#:110
#:18
#:194
2220 - Not Served
2221 - Not Served
(2/18/11) CCG N001
ALIAS - SUMMONS
SUMMONS
LAW
COUNTY DEPARTMENT,
DIVISION
No. 2015-L-007231
MARY MIZERK
(Name all parties)
v.
Defendant Address:
731 LASALLE LLC
122 W. SUPERIOR ST.
CHICAGO, IL 60654
731 LASALLE LLC
Summons
To each Defendant:
ALIAS - SUMMONS
SUMMONS
YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of which is
hereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance, and pay the required fee, in the Office of the Clerk of this Court at the
following location:
Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Room
801
,Chicago, Illinois 60602
District 2 - Skokie
5600 Old Orchard Rd.
Skokie, IL 60077
District 3 - Rolling Meadows

2121 Euclid
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
District 4 - Maywood
1500 Maybrook Ave.
Maywood, IL 60153
District 5 - Bridgeview
10220 S. 76th Ave.
Bridgeview, IL 60455
District 6 - Markham
16501 S. Kedzie Pkwy.
Markham, IL 60426
Child Support
28 North Clark St., Room 200
You must file within 30 days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service.
IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF
REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT.
To the officer:
This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, with endorsement
of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, this Summons shall be returned so endorsed.
This Summons may not be served later than 30 days after its date.
44190
Atty. No.:__________________
STEELE LAW FIRM LLC
Name: ________________________________________________
MARY MIZERK
Atty. for: ______________________________________________
161 N CLARK #3200
Address: ______________________________________________
CHICAGO, IL 60601
City/State/Zip: __________________________________________
(312) 893-5888
Telephone: _____________________________________________
Thursday, 16 July
2015
WITNESS, __________________________, ____________
/s DOROTHY BROWN
_____________________________________________
Clerk of Court
Date of service: _______________________, __________
(To be inserted by officer on copy left with defendant
or other person)
Service by Facsimile Transmission will be accepted at: ________________________________________________________________

(Area Code)
(Facsimile Telephone Number)
/s DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page19
19
1 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:1
#:111
#:195

EDDIE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT
DENTAL EXPERTS, LLC; and KS REAL

PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Eddie Davis, by and through the undersigned counsel, brings this action against
Dental Experts, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company doing business as Dental Dreams,
LLC; and KS Real Properties, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, for violations of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq. (the ADA) and its implementing
regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. (the IHRA) and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the dental
clinic known as Dental Dreams, even though such removal is readily achievable.
2.
The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the dental clinic known as
Dental Dreams, located at 3057 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.

3.
Defendants failure to provide equal access to Dental Dreams violates the man-
dates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodations
goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.
-1-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page20
20
2 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:2
#:112
#:196
4.
Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy the discriminatory barriers at their facilities.
5.
6.
Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction of this
Court arises under 28 U.S.C. 1331. This action includes federal law claims brought pursuant
to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 1218112189, and for damages,
civil penalties, and injunctive relief pursuant to the IHRA. This Court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs nonfederal law causes of action, violations of the IHRA, because the
claims asserted in this action arise from a common nucleus of operative fact. The Court has the
jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and Fed R. Civ. P. 57.
7.
Venue in this judicial district is proper because Defendants are located and trans-
act business within this judicial district and have sufficient contacts to be subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and because this is the judicial district in which the acts and
omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
PARTIES
8.
Plaintiff Eddie Davis is a resident of the city of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff Davis
suffers from, and all times relevant hereto has suffered from, a legal disability as defined by the
ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2), and the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/1-103(I).
9.
Plaintiff Eddie Davis suffers from chronic arthritis in both legs and shoulders. He
is substantially limited in performing several major life activities, including but not limited to
-2-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page21
21
3 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:3
#:113
#:197
walking and standing. He is required to use wheelchair for mobility. As a person with a disability, he has a personal interest in having full and equal access to places of public accommodation
and to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or other things offered therein.
10.
Defendant KS Real Properties, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, is the
owner of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the dental clinic Dental Dreams, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, located at
the street address of 3057 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.
11.
Defendant Dental Experts, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company doing busi-
ness as Dental Dreams, LLC, is the operator of the real property and improvements which are the
subject of this action, the dental clinic Dental Dreams, a place of public accommodation within
the meaning of the ADA, located at the street address of 3057 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL
60623.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12.
On or around July 14, 2015, Plaintiff Davis attempted to visit Dental Dreams,
which is located approximately 2.5 miles from his apartment.

13.
Upon arrival, Plaintiff Davis could not find an accessible parking space in the
Dental Dreams customer parking lot. Despite having approximately ten parking spaces, the
customer parking lot had no accessible parking spaces. A photograph in Exhibit A to this Complaint shows the parking lot of Dental Dreams.
14.
The main public entrance facing Cermak Road was situated approximately four
inches above the height of the sidewalk. The doorway and sidewalk levels were connected by a
concrete step approximately three feet deep that extended the length of the building. A photograph in Exhibit B to this Complaint shows the Cermak Road public entrance of Dental
Dreams. No ramps provided an alternate way to bridge the change in level.
15.
No signage at the Cermak Road public entrance indicated the presence of or di-
rected customers to an accessible entrance.
-3-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page22
22
4 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:4
#:114
#:198
16.
A second entrance to Dental Dreams, facing Albany Avenue, was accessible
through the Dental Dreams parking lot, where a ramp connected the lower parking lot level to
the higher sidewalk level. No signage at this entrance indicated that this was an accessible entrance.
17.
In light of the architectural barriers at Dental Dreams, Plaintiff Davis is deterred
from visiting Dental Dreams in the future. Plaintiff Davis would like to be able to patronize
Dental Dreams, but these architectural barriers deter him from doing so. He plans to return and
patronize Dental Dreams when he learns that the premises have been made fully accessible to
persons who use wheelchairs for mobility.
18.
Plaintiff Davis attempted to access Defendants premises, but could not do so in-
dependently on a full and equal basis because of his disabilities, due to the physical barriers to
access and violations of the ADA that exist at Defendants premises. As a result of Defendants
non-compliance with the ADA, Plaintiff Davis cannot independently access the facilities and/or
is excluded from full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, advantages, and/or
accommodations offered therein.
FACT ALLEGATIONS
19.
Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff Davis on the basis of his disabili-
ties by failing to comply with the requirements of the ADA, the Americans With Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to Dental Dreams. A specific, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at Dental
Dreams which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facilities and/or to enjoy
the goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein on a full and
equal basis, includes the following:
a. Dental Dreams has approximately ten parking spaces in its parking lot but does
not have an accessible parking space, in violation of ADAAG 208.2.
b. The Cermak Road entrance of Dental Dreams was inaccessible but did not provide directional signage to an accessible entrance, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.
-4-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page23
23
5 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:5
#:115
#:199
c. Not all entrances to Dental Dreams were accessible, but the accessible entrances were not identified through signage, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.
20.
tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff or which exist at Dental Dreams.
21.
spection of Dental Dreams in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to access and
22.

C.F.R. 36.304(b).
23.
As a person with a disability, Plaintiff Davis has a personal interest in having full
and equal access to places of public accommodation and to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or other things offered therein.
24.
continue to cause injury to Plaintiff, who will continue to be deterred from patronizing the facility and will continue to be unable to independently access Dental Dreams and/or to enjoy the
equal basis, in violation of his rights under the ADA.
25.
26.
-5-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page24
24
6 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:6
#:116
#:200
27.
28.
including the ADAAG, as described above. Plaintiff Davis has been denied full and equal access
to Dental Dreams and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full and equal basis.
29.
30.
Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers to full and equal access
encountered by Plaintiff Davis, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.
31.
Plaintiff Davis plans to visit the tenant businesses of Dental Dreams again in
the near future. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm, and reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his
planned return visit to Dental Dreams unless and until Defendants are required to remove the
physical barriers to access and ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set forth specifically herein.
32.
lief, including an order requiring Defendants to make Dental Dreams readily accessible to and
independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and
-6-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page25
25
7 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:7
#:117
#:201
ADAAG, and/or to close Dental Dreams until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.
33.
34.
35.

accommodation.
36.
and equal basis in violation of the IHRA, as described above. Plaintiff Davis has been denied full
and equal access to Dental Dreams and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or
benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full
and equal basis.
37.

38.
Plaintiff Davis, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

39.
Plaintiff Davis plans to visit Dental Dreams again in the near future. Plaintiff is
without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm, and reasonably
anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his planned return visit to Dental Dreams unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access
-7-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page26
26
8 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:8
#:118
#:202
40.
cluding an order requiring Defendants to make Dental Dreams readily accessible to and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the IHRA, and/or to
close Dental Dreams until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.
41.
-8-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page27
27
9 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:9
#:119
#:203
d. That the Court award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses,
DATED: August 11, 2015

/s/ John Steele
Phone: (312) 396-4154
-9-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-1
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
28
28
1of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:10
#:120
#:204
EXHIBIT A
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-1
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
29
29
2of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:11
#:121
#:205
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-2
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
30
30
1of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:12
#:122
#:206
EXHIBIT B
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07334
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-2
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
31
31
2of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:13
#:123
#:207
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page32
32
1 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:1
#:124
#:208

EDDIE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT
ROYAL DENTAL LA VILLITA, P.C.;

RICHARD HAE DONG PARK aka HAE
DONG PARK; and SANDY MISUN PARK
aka MI SUN PARK,
Defendants.
Defendants Royal Dental La Villita, P.C., an Illinois business corporation; Richard Hae Dong
Park aka Hae Dong Park, an individual; and Sandy Misun Park aka Mi Sun Park, an individual,
for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq. (the ADA)
and its implementing regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq.
(the IHRA) and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the dental
clinic known as Royal Dental, even though such removal is readily achievable.
2.
The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the dental clinic known as
Royal Dental, located at 3142 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.

3.
Defendants failure to provide equal access to Royal Dental violates the man-
dates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodations
goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.
-1-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page33
33
2 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:2
#:125
#:209
4.
5.
6.
7.
PARTIES
8.
9.
-2-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page34
34
3 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:3
#:126
#:210
10.
Defendants Richard Hae Dong Park aka Hae Dong Park, an individual; and Sandy
Misun Park aka Mi Sun Park, an individual, are the owners of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the dental clinic, Royal Dental, a place of public
accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, located at the street address of 3142 W Cermak
Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.
11.
Defendant Royal Dental La Villita, P.C, an Illinois business corporation, is the
lessee and operator of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action,
the dental clinic Royal Dental, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the
ADA, located at the street address of 3142 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12.
On or around July 14, 2015, Plaintiff Davis attempted to visit Royal Dental,
which is located approximately 2.5 miles from his apartment.

13.
Plaintiff Davis is a patient of Royal Dental and has used the dental services of
Royal Dental in the past.

14.
Upon arrival, Plaintiff Davis could not find an accessible public entrance into
Royal Dental. A step constituting a change in level of approximately six inches separated the
doorway from the sidewalk. No ramp alternative provided access for persons who use wheelchairs. A photograph in exhibit A to this Complaint shows the change in level at the doorway of
the public entrance to Royal Dental.
15.
Plaintiff Davis could have attempted to gain access to the building by accepting
assistance from Royal Dental staff to enter the building and leaving his wheelchair on the
sidewalk during the clinic visit. Plaintiff Davis was reluctant to do so, however, because a friend
of his who is also a patient of Royal Dental and uses a wheelchair for mobility left his wheelchair on the sidewalk only to have it stolen while inside the dental clinic.
-3-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page35
35
4 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:4
#:127
#:211
16.
In light of the architectural barriers at Royal Dental, Plaintiff Davis is deterred
from visiting Royal Dental in the future. Plaintiff Davis would like to be able to patronize
Royal Dental, but these architectural barriers deter him from doing so. He plans to return and
patronize Royal Dental when he learns that the premises have been made fully accessible to
persons who use wheelchairs for mobility.
17.
FACT ALLEGATIONS
18.
Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to Royal Dental. A specific, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at Royal Dental which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facilities and/or to enjoy the
equal basis, includes the following:
a. The public entrance to Royal Dental has a change in level greater than half an
inch with no ramp alternative, in violation of ADAAG 404.2.5.
b. Royal Dental does not have an accessible public entrance, in violation of
ADAAG 206.4.1.
19.
tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff Davis or which exist at Royal Dental.
-4-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page36
36
5 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:5
#:128
#:212
20.
spection of Royal Dental in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to access and
21.

C.F.R. 36.304(b).
22.
23.
continue to cause injury to Plaintiff, who will continue to be deterred from patronizing the facility and will continue to be unable to independently access Royal Dental and/or to enjoy the
equal basis, in violation of his rights under the ADA.
24.
25.
-5-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page37
37
6 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:6
#:129
#:213
26.
27.
to Royal Dental and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full and equal basis.
28.
29.

30.
Plaintiff Davis plans to visit Royal Dental again in the near future. Plaintiff is
anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his planned return visit to Royal Dental unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access and
ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set
31.
lief, including an order requiring Defendants to make Royal Dental readily accessible to and
independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and
ADAAG, and/or to close Royal Dental until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.
32.
-6-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page38
38
7 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:7
#:130
#:214

33.
34.

accommodation.
35.
and equal access to Royal Dental and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or
benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full
and equal basis.
36.

37.

38.
Plaintiff Davis plans to visit Royal Dental again in the near future. Plaintiff is
anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his planned return visit to Royal Dental unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access and
ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set
39.
cluding an order requiring Defendants to make Royal Dental readily accessible to and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the IHRA, and/or to
close Royal Dental until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.
-7-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page39
39
8 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:8
#:131
#:215
40.
-8-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page40
40
9 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:9
#:132
#:216

/s/ John Steele
Phone: (312) 396-4154
-9-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-1
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
41
41
1of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:10
#:133
#:217
EXHIBIT A
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07335
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-1
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
42
42
2of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:11
#:134
#:218
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page43
43
1 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:1
#:135
#:219

EDDIE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT
GUERRERO LP, INC.; LORENZO PEDRO aka LORENZO PEDRO MILLAN; and
ALEJANDRA RAMIREZ fka ALEJANDRA
PEDRO,
Defendants.
Defendants Guerrero LP, Inc., an Illinois business corporation; Lorenzo Pedro aka Lorenzo Pedro Millan, an individual; and Alejandra Ramirez fka Alejandra Pedro, an individual, for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq. (the ADA) and its
implementing regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. (the
IHRA) and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the grocery store known as Supermercado Guerrero, even though such removal is readily achievable.
2.
The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the grocery store known as
Supermercado Guerrero, located at 3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.

3.
Defendants failure to provide equal access to Supermercado Guerrero violates
the mandates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodations goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.
-1-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page44
44
2 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:2
#:136
#:220
4.
5.
6.
7.
PARTIES
8.
9.
-2-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page45
45
3 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:3
#:137
#:221
10.
Defendants Lorenzo Pedro aka Lorenzo Pedro Millan an individual, and Alejan-
dra Ramirez fka Alejandra Pedro, an individual, are the owners of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the grocery store, Supermercado Guerrero, a
place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, located at the street address of
3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.
11.
Defendant Guerrero LP, Inc., an Illinois business corporation, is the lessee and
operator of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the grocery
store Supermercado Guerrero, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the
ADA, located at the street address of 3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12.
On or around July 14, 2015, Plaintiff Davis attempted to visit Supermercado
Guerrero, which is located approximately 2.5 miles from his apartment.

13.
Supermercado Guerrero. The doorway of the public entrance facing Cermak Road was positioned at the top of a ramp approximately two feet long with a six inch rise. A change in level of
approximately two inches at the base of the ramp prevented a smooth transition between the public sidewalk and the ramp leading to the entrance. There was no maneuvering clearance between
the ramp and the doorway. Photographs in Exhibit A to this Complaint show the public entrance
to Supermercado Guerrero.
14.
No signage indicated the presence of an accessible entrance.
15.
Navigating a wheelchair over large changes in level is dangerous for Plaintiff Da-
vis due to the danger of tipping or damaging his wheelchair, especially when he is on a ramped
surface or opening doors. The lack of any level maneuvering clearance on the exterior of Supermercado Guerrero compounds the difficulty of gaining access to the grocery store.
-3-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page46
46
4 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:4
#:138
#:222
16.
In light of the architectural barriers at Supermercado Guerrero, Plaintiff Davis
is deterred from visiting Supermercado Guerrero in the future. Plaintiff Davis would like to be
able to patronize Supermercado Guerrero, but these architectural barriers deter him from doing
so. He plans to return and patronize Supermercado Guerrero when he learns that the premises
have been made fully accessible to persons who use wheelchairs for mobility.
17.
FACT ALLEGATIONS
18.
Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to Supermercado Guerrero. A specific, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at
Supermercado Guerrero which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facilities and/or to enjoy the goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered
therein on a full and equal basis, includes the following:
a. The route to the public entrance of Supermercado Guerrero has a change in level greater than half an inch, in violation of ADAAG 403.4 and 303.2.
b. The exterior side of the doorway of the public entrance of Supermercado Guerrero does not have level maneuvering clearance, in violation of ADAAG 404.2.4
and 404.2.4.4.
c. Supermercado Guerrero does not have an accessible public entrance, in violation of ADAAG 206.4.1.
-4-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page47
47
5 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:5
#:139
#:223
d. To the extent that Supermercado Guerrero has an accessible public entrance, the
entrance facing Cermak Road did not have directional signage indicating the
presence of an accessible entrance, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.
19.
tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff Davis or which exist at Supermercado
Guerrero.
20.
spection of Supermercado Guerrero in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to
access and violations of the ADA, the ADAAG and the ILCS.
21.

C.F.R. 36.304(b).
22.
23.
continue to cause injury to Plaintiff, who will continue to be deterred from patronizing the facility and will continue to be unable to independently access Supermercado Guerrero and/or to
full and equal basis, in violation of his rights under the ADA.
24.

-5-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page48
48
6 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:6
#:140
#:224
25.
26.
27.
to Supermercado Guerrero and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit
equal basis.
28.
29.

30.
Plaintiff Davis plans to visit Supermercado Guerrero again in the near future.
Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm, and
reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his planned return
visit to Supermercado Guerrero unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access and ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set forth specifically herein.
31.
lief, including an order requiring Defendants to make Supermercado Guerrero readily accessi-6-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page49
49
7 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:7
#:141
#:225
ble to and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the
ADA and ADAAG, and/or to close Supermercado Guerrero until such time as Defendants cure
the access barriers.
32.
33.
34.

accommodation.
35.
and equal access to Supermercado Guerrero and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
on a full and equal basis.
36.

37.

38.
visit to Supermercado Guerrero unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physi-7-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page50
50
8 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:8
#:142
#:226
cal barriers to access and ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set forth specifically herein.
39.
cluding an order requiring Defendants to make Supermercado Guerrero readily accessible to

and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the IHRA,
and/or to close Supermercado Guerrero until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.
40.
-8-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page51
51
9 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:9
#:143
#:227

/s/ John Steele
Phone: (312) 396-4154
-9-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-1
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
52
52
1of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:10
#:144
#:228
EXHIBIT A
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-1
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
53
53
2of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:11
#:145
#:229
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page54
54
1 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:1
#:146
#:230

EDDIE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT
GUERRERO LP, INC.; LORENZO PEDRO aka LORENZO PEDRO MILLAN; and
ALEJANDRA RAMIREZ fka ALEJANDRA
PEDRO,
Defendants.
Defendants Guerrero LP, Inc., an Illinois business corporation; Lorenzo Pedro aka Lorenzo Pedro Millan, an individual; and Alejandra Ramirez fka Alejandra Pedro, an individual, for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq. (the ADA) and its
implementing regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. (the
IHRA) and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the grocery store known as Supermercado Guerrero, even though such removal is readily achievable.
2.
The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the grocery store known as
Supermercado Guerrero, located at 3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.

3.
Defendants failure to provide equal access to Supermercado Guerrero violates
the mandates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodations goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.
-1-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page55
55
2 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:2
#:147
#:231
4.
5.
6.
7.
PARTIES
8.
9.
-2-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page56
56
3 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:3
#:148
#:232
10.
Defendants Lorenzo Pedro aka Lorenzo Pedro Millan an individual, and Alejan-
dra Ramirez fka Alejandra Pedro, an individual, are the owners of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the grocery store, Supermercado Guerrero, a
place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, located at the street address of
3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.
11.
Defendant Guerrero LP, Inc., an Illinois business corporation, is the lessee and
operator of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the grocery
store Supermercado Guerrero, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the
ADA, located at the street address of 3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12.
On or around July 14, 2015, Plaintiff Davis attempted to visit Supermercado
Guerrero, which is located approximately 2.5 miles from his apartment.

13.
Supermercado Guerrero. The doorway of the public entrance facing Cermak Road was positioned at the top of a ramp approximately two feet long with a six inch rise. A change in level of
approximately two inches at the base of the ramp prevented a smooth transition between the public sidewalk and the ramp leading to the entrance. There was no maneuvering clearance between
the ramp and the doorway. Photographs in Exhibit A to this Complaint show the public entrance
to Supermercado Guerrero.
14.
No signage indicated the presence of an accessible entrance.
15.
Navigating a wheelchair over large changes in level is dangerous for Plaintiff Da-
vis due to the danger of tipping or damaging his wheelchair, especially when he is on a ramped
surface or opening doors. The lack of any level maneuvering clearance on the exterior of Supermercado Guerrero compounds the difficulty of gaining access to the grocery store.
-3-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page57
57
4 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:4
#:149
#:233
16.
In light of the architectural barriers at Supermercado Guerrero, Plaintiff Davis
is deterred from visiting Supermercado Guerrero in the future. Plaintiff Davis would like to be
able to patronize Supermercado Guerrero, but these architectural barriers deter him from doing
so. He plans to return and patronize Supermercado Guerrero when he learns that the premises
have been made fully accessible to persons who use wheelchairs for mobility.
17.
FACT ALLEGATIONS
18.
Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to Supermercado Guerrero. A specific, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at
Supermercado Guerrero which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facilities and/or to enjoy the goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered
therein on a full and equal basis, includes the following:
a. The route to the public entrance of Supermercado Guerrero has a change in level greater than half an inch, in violation of ADAAG 403.4 and 303.2.
b. The exterior side of the doorway of the public entrance of Supermercado Guerrero does not have level maneuvering clearance, in violation of ADAAG 404.2.4
and 404.2.4.4.
c. Supermercado Guerrero does not have an accessible public entrance, in violation of ADAAG 206.4.1.
-4-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page58
58
5 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:5
#:150
#:234
d. To the extent that Supermercado Guerrero has an accessible public entrance, the
entrance facing Cermak Road did not have directional signage indicating the
presence of an accessible entrance, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.
19.
tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff Davis or which exist at Supermercado
Guerrero.
20.
spection of Supermercado Guerrero in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to
access and violations of the ADA, the ADAAG and the ILCS.
21.

C.F.R. 36.304(b).
22.
23.
continue to cause injury to Plaintiff, who will continue to be deterred from patronizing the facility and will continue to be unable to independently access Supermercado Guerrero and/or to
full and equal basis, in violation of his rights under the ADA.
24.

-5-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page59
59
6 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:6
#:151
#:235
25.
26.
27.
to Supermercado Guerrero and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit
equal basis.
28.
29.

30.
visit to Supermercado Guerrero unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access and ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set forth specifically herein.
31.
lief, including an order requiring Defendants to make Supermercado Guerrero readily accessi-6-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page60
60
7 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:7
#:152
#:236
ble to and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the
ADA and ADAAG, and/or to close Supermercado Guerrero until such time as Defendants cure
the access barriers.
32.
33.
34.

accommodation.
35.
and equal access to Supermercado Guerrero and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
on a full and equal basis.
36.

37.

38.
visit to Supermercado Guerrero unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physi-7-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page61
61
8 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:8
#:153
#:237
cal barriers to access and ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set forth specifically herein.
39.
cluding an order requiring Defendants to make Supermercado Guerrero readily accessible to

and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the IHRA,
and/or to close Supermercado Guerrero until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.
40.
-8-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
6-2
#: 1Filed:
Filed:
Filed:09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15Page
Page
Page62
62
9 of
of
of64
964PageID
PageID
PageID#:9
#:154
#:238

/s/ John Steele
Phone: (312) 396-4154
-9-
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-1
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
63
63
1of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:10
#:155
#:239
EXHIBIT A
Case:
Case:
Case:
1:15-cv-03800
1:15-cv-07716
1:15-cv-07336
Document
Document
Document
#:
#:18-2
#:
6-2
1-1
Filed:
Filed:
Filed:
09/02/15
09/02/15
08/21/15
Page
Page
Page
64
64
2of
of64
2
64PageID
PageID
PageID#:11
#:156
#:240

Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. Et Al

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. Et Al

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No.: 15-cv-7131

Plaintiffs Complaint is removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

The remainder of Plaintiffs claims are removable to federal court pursuant to 28

Plaintiffs Complainant will be cited to hereinafter as Compl. __.

By copy of this document and in accordance with the Certificate of Service,

as La Salle Flowers, located at 731 N La Salle Drive, Chicago, IL 60654.

Defendants failure to provide equal access to La Salle Flowers violates the

Defendants conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the law.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants facilities violate feder-

Plaintiff Mary Mizerk suffers from osteoarthritis. She is substantially limited in

Defendant LaSalle Flowers, Inc., an Illinois business corporation, is the operator

On or around May 6, 2015, Plaintiff Mizerk attempted to visit La Salle Flowers,

which is located approximately three city blocks from her apartment.

Upon arrival, Plaintiff Mizerk could not find an accessible entrance.

No signage indicated the existence of an accessible entrance or a route to an ac-

cessible entrance from the inaccessible front entrance.

In light of the architectural barriers at La Salle Flowers, Plaintiff Mizerk is de-

Plaintiff Mizerk attempted to access Defendants premises, but could not do so

a. La Salle Flowers does not have an accessible public entrance, in violation of

In order to fully remedy the discriminatory conditions, Plaintiff requires an in-

12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) because removal of architectural barriers is readily achievable. Compliance

As a person with a disability, Plaintiff Mizerk has a personal interest in having

Without injunctive relief, Defendants failure to remove accessibility barriers will

Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the above paragraphs.

Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to

Plaintiff Mizerk, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the above paragraphs.

775 ILCS 5/5-102 provides:

discriminatory conduct. Defendants violations of the IHRA are ongoing.

Plaintiff Mizerk, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

DATED: July 16, 2015

/s/ John Steele

2120 - Served Case:

LASALLE FLOWERS, INC.

,Chicago, Illinois 60602

District 3 - Rolling Meadows

Service by Facsimile Transmission will be accepted at: ________________________________________________________________

/s DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

2120 - Served Case:

731 LASALLE LLC

,Chicago, Illinois 60602

District 3 - Rolling Meadows

Service by Facsimile Transmission will be accepted at: ________________________________________________________________

/s DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DENTAL EXPERTS, LLC; and KS REAL

Dental Dreams, located at 3057 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.

Defendants conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the law.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants facilities violate feder-

Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction of this

Defendant KS Real Properties, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, is the

which is located approximately 2.5 miles from his apartment.

rected customers to an accessible entrance.

A second entrance to Dental Dreams, facing Albany Avenue, was accessible

In light of the architectural barriers at Dental Dreams, Plaintiff Davis is deterred

In order to fully remedy the discriminatory conditions, Plaintiff requires an in-

12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) because removal of architectural barriers is readily achievable. Compliance

Without injunctive relief, Defendants failure to remove accessibility barriers will

Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the above paragraphs.

Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to