Chick Fil A Disabilities Drive Thru

Case 0:20-cv-60737-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2020 Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
CASE NO.:
LESLIE COOPER,
JACK COOPER, and
ERIK COOPER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CHICK-FIL-A, INC.,
Defendant.
/
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs Leslie Cooper, Jack Cooper and Erik Cooper, by and through their undersigned
counsel, hereby sue Defendant Chick-fil-A, Inc. for injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
12181-12189 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 28 C.F.R. Part 36 and allege
the following:
JURISDICTION
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”). This Court is vested with
original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.
2. Venue is proper in the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) in that all events
giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the State of Florida, Southern District of Florida.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Leslie Cooper (also referenced as “Leslie Cooper,” or collectively with
co-Plaintiffs as “Plaintiffs”) was (and is currently) a resident of the State of Florida, resides
within the Southern judicial district, is the legal spouse of co-Plaintiff Jack Cooper, is the
biological mother of co-Plaintiff Erik Cooper, and suffers from a “qualified disability” under the
ADA as defined in 28 C.F.R. §36.105(b)(2) and 28 C.F.R. §36.105(2)(iii)(D). Due to her
disability, Leslie Cooper has been issued a state of Florida disability parking placard. Leslie
Cooper is afflicted with the disease Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and utilizes a
ventilator and oxygen tank when traveling and also uses a wheelchair for mobility. Leslie
Cooper’s disability limits her major life activities, she requires the assistance of an aid for her
daily functions and relies on her husband (Plaintiff Jack Cooper) and her son (Plaintiff Erik
Cooper) to transport her when she goes shopping or when she dines at restaurants.
4. Plaintiff Jack Cooper (also referenced as “Jack Cooper,” or collectively with co-
Plaintiffs as “Plaintiffs”) was (and is currently) a resident of the State of Florida, resides within
the Southern judicial district, is the legal spouse of co-Plaintiff Leslie Cooper, is the biological
father of co-Plaintiff Erik Cooper and suffers from a “qualified disability” under the ADA as
defined in 28 C.F.R. §36.105(b)(2) and 28 C.F.R. §36.105(2)(iii)(D). Due to his disability, Jack
Cooper has been issued a state of Florida disability parking placard. Jack Cooper is disabled due
to a back injury which limits his major life activities.
5. Plaintiff Erik Cooper (also referenced as “Erik Cooper,” or collectively with co-
Plaintiffs as “Plaintiffs”) was (and is currently) a resident of the State of Florida, resides within
the Southern judicial district, is the biological son of co-Plaintiffs Leslie Cooper and Jack
Cooper. Erik Cooper has been disabled since 2007, utilizes a cane for mobility and has been
issued a disability parking placard. Erik Cooper’s disability is defined in 28 C.F.R. §36.105(b)(2)
and 28 C.F.R. §36.105(2)(iii)(D).
2
6. Jack Cooper provides daily aide and assistance to Leslie Cooper. Erik Cooper
regularly assists Leslie Cooper with her daily activities which include transporting her to places
of public accommodation such as shopping centers, medical offices, and eating establishments.
7. Defendant Chick-fil-A, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a privately held company which is
the owner of the “Chick-fil-A,” a fast food restaurant chain whose specialty is chicken
sandwiches. The “Chick-fil-A” brand is the third largest fast food restaurant chain in
America, which has 2,3631 locations and gross revenue of $10.5 billion in 2018.
FACTS
8. Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is conducting, the business of operating a
Chick-fil-A fast food restaurant located at 12203 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida,
which is within the jurisdiction of this court.
9. Defendant’s Chick-fil-A restaurant is open to the general public and therefore is a
place of public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B) as: “[A] restaurant, bar, or
other establishment serving food or drink.” The Chick-fil-A restaurant is referenced throughout
as “Chick-fil-A,” “restaurant,” or “place of public accommodation.”
10. As the operator of a restaurant which is open to the public, Defendant is defined
as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title III because it is a private entity which
owns, or operates a restaurant; 42 U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(B), 28 C.F.R. §36.104.
11. The Chick-fil-A restaurant contains a parking lot, which parking is available for
the general public patrons of the restaurant. The parking lot was originally designed, constructed,
and marked to provide for two disabled accessible parking spaces.
1
Ravneberg, Christie (June 25, 2919) "Inside Chick-fil-A's rise to 3rd-largest restaurant brand" Nations
Restaurant News.
3
12. At some point in 2019, Defendant re-designed the Chick-fil-A restaurant’s drive-
thru lane so that the path of the drive through cuts off the availability of the only two disabled
accessible parking spaces to disabled patrons of the restaurant.
13. Since re-designing its drive-thru lane, Defendant has not redesigned remaining
portions of the parking lot to accommodate disabled individuals who have valid handicapped
parking placards.
14. Disabled individuals who have valid handicapped parking placards (such as the
Plaintiffs) are unable to access the disability parking spaces because of delineator stanchions and
parking cones set up to delineate the drive-thru lane which cut off disabled patrons use of the
spaces. A further obstruction is caused by Defendant’s employees standing within the drive-thru
lane taking customers' orders from a line of vehicles waiting in the drive-thru lane for drive-thru
‘to go’ orders. These obstructions are depicted at Fig. 1:
Fig. 1
15. The popularity of the restaurant particularly during the lunch and dinnertime time
periods (when Plaintiffs have patronized the restaurant) has led to a plethora of automobile
4
traffic which results in the newly-designed drive through line blocking disabled patrons’ ability
to park in the only two disability parking spaces, as depicted at Fig. 2:
Fig. 2
16. Furthermore, portable carts, air conditioners, and sun umbrellas obstruct the
ingress and egress to the restaurant from the easternmost parking spaces, where the only two
disability parking spaces are located.
17. At all times delineated within this Complaint, during the lunch and dinnertime
periods of the day when Plaintiffs have patronized Defendant’s Chick-fil-A restaurant, none of
the parking spaces in the Chick-fil-A parking lot have been available for use by disabled
individuals including those parking spaces which are designated as disability parking spaces.
18. Plaintiffs have patronized the Chick-fil-A restaurant at 12203 Pines Boulevard
prior to instituting this instant action.
19. Prior to Defendant’s re-design of the drive-thru lane of the Chick-fil-A restaurant,
Plaintiff Erik Cooper was able to park the Cooper’s vehicle in one of the two designated
disability parking spaces during the lunch and dinner time periods when they patronized the
restaurant.
5
20. However, on September 11, 2019, when Plaintiffs Leslie Cooper, Jack Cooper
and Erik Cooper dined at Chick-fil-A, they were unable to park their vehicle in either of two
available disability parking spaces due to the redesign of the drive-thru lane and restaurant
operations, causing a number of Chick-fil-A employees to block the flow of all vehicle traffic in
the parking area while taking customer orders, and due to delineator stanchions and a substantial
number of vehicles blocking both of the designated disability parking spaces.
21. After parking their vehicle in another section of the restaurant’s parking area, Erik
Cooper asked to speak with the owner/manager of the restaurant about the restaurant’s
operations and the Cooper’s inability to access either of two disability parking spaces due to
employees taking customer orders, delineator stanchions and drive-thru customers’ vehicles
blocking vehicle access to the parking area. A restaurant manager offered Erik the business card
of Defendant’s owner/operator, Nick Christiantiello. Erik filled out a “Chick-fil-A Cares”
comment card and deposited the card in the collection box by the entrance door. On September
12, 2019 Plaintiff Erik Cooper, on behalf of Plaintiffs Leslie Cooper, Jack Cooper, and himself,
contacted Defendant’s representative via email correspondence addressed and submitted to Dan
Cathy (“Mr. Cathy”), chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Defendant Chick-fil-A,
Inc., and included restaurant owner/operator Nick Christiantiello. Plaintiffs received no response
from the Defendants. On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff Erik Cooper, again, on behalf of
Plaintiffs Leslie Cooper, Jack Cooper, and himself, sent a second request for reply to Mr. Cathy.
22. On September 24, 2019 Plaintiffs received a reply from a corporate representative
of the Defendant2 stating that the restaurant was “designed in compliance with the ADA, as well
as local codes and regulations.” The Defendant even suggested, “the local [o]perator for this
restaurant has team members outside and available to assist with parking in the [disability]
2
Identified by Defendant as Victor Sanchez, a “senior business consultant.”
6
accessible spaces.” Plaintiffs Jack Cooper and Erik Cooper were unable to access any purported
“team members” to request assistance to access any of the two disability accessible parking
spaces on September 13, 2019 because the que of drive-thru customers’ vehicles flowed from the
restaurant’s drive-thru lane and into the parking lot and beyond. Plaintiff Erik Cooper replied via
email to Defendant’s email response of the same date and disputed the Defendant’s claims.
23. On September 26, 2019, the Defendant’s representative2 responded to Plaintiffs’
September 24, 2019 email response and again claimed, “[A]ll Chick-fil-A restaurants are
designed in compliance with the ADA, as well as local codes and requirements.” The response
continued, “Chick-fil-A is reviewing your concerns, and the real estate team has been exploring
options to reconfigure the parking lot at the restaurant for some time. While we believe the
parking lot is compliant as-is, the volume of customers visiting the restaurant has increased, and
changes to the parking lot could provide a more convenient experience for all customers. Chick-
fil-A is discussing options with various parties involved, including third parties, in such a large
remodel. In the interim, the traffic setup in place at the restaurant allows cars to move through
the drive thru efficiently, and restaurant team members are available to assist navigating the
parking lot.” Plaintiffs respectfully disagree.
24. Defendant’s representative failed to directly address the fact that the restaurant’s
designated parking spaces, while present, were not available to disabled patrons due to the
redesign of the drive-thru lane.
7
25. Denial of access to disability-accessible parking spaces was repeated on
Plaintiffs’ lunch and dinner time visits on:
September 23, 2019
September 24, 2019
September 27, 2019
October 1, 2019
October 4, 2019
October 19, 2019
October 26, 2019
October 31, 2019
November 6, 2019
November 11, 2019
December 9, 2019
December 28, 2019
January 1, 2020
January 6, 2020
and continues up until the date of the filing of this action.
26. On November 4, 2019, in order to gain access to the disability parking space via
the only routing possible, Erik Cooper waited in the lengthy drive-thru lane. When Erik Cooper
approached one of Defendant’s representatives, who was taking orders directly from patrons in
the drive-thru lane, Erik was told that that he could not park his car in a disability parking space
because the disability-accessible parking spaces were “closed.”
8
27. Fig 3 depicts the obstruction caused by Defendant’s employees standing within
the drive-thru lane taking customers' orders from a line of vehicles waiting in the drive-thru lane
for drive-thru ‘to go’ orders:
Fig. 3
28. Denial of access was repeated on November 6, 2019, November 11, 2019, and
again on December 9, 2019 when Plaintiffs again went to patronize the restaurant during the
lunch and dinner time periods.
29. As a result of the designated disability parking spaces being blocked, Plaintiffs
have suffered by Erik Cooper’s being forced to park a substantial distance from the restaurant
and navigate portable carts, air conditioners, and sun umbrellas blocking ingress and egress to
the restaurant for the disabled trio.
30. Due to the Defendant’s actions in redesigning the drive-thru lane which by its
redesign blocks the designated disability parking spaces from use by disabled patrons, there are
no usable disability parking spaces available at the restaurant particularly during Defendant’s
promotions and the busy lunch and dinner time periods.
9
31. Erik Cooper has communicated to the Defendant that he and his parents (Plaintiffs
Leslie Cooper and Jack Cooper) are disabled, and that they are permitted to park in the
designated disability parking spaces because they each have valid disability parking placards.
32. Plaintiff Erik Cooper has informed Defendant that the redesign of the drive-thru
lane has blocked access to the restaurant’s designed, labeled, marked, and painted handicapped
parking spaces and that such blockage is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”).
33. Plaintiff Erik Cooper, on his own behalf and on behalf of his parents (Leslie
Cooper and Jack Cooper) made repeated and multiple requests to the Defendant to comply with
the ADA and to provide access to the disability parking spaces at its restaurant located at 12203
Pines Boulevard.
34. Defendant has disregarded the Plaintiffs’ reasonable requests for access to its
place of public accommodation and responded with corporate-speak indicating it will address
the matter “in the future,” and other unhelpful and dismissive remarks.
35. Despite repeated requests, Defendant has failed and refused change the routing of
its drive-thru lane to allow access to the disability-accessible parking spaces by disabled patrons,
as intended. Further, the Defendant has not re-designed its parking lot to create any alternative
parking for disabled patrons with meet the specifications delineated within 28 C.F.R. Part 36
Section 4.6.
36. The Defendant has exhibited blatant disregard for the disabled and non-
acceptance of the needs of disabled individuals, which is in violation of 28 C.F.R. Part 36
Sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2, and 4.6.3.
10
37. As a result of the failure of the Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with disability-
accessible parking, Plaintiffs have been denied full and equal access to the Chick-fil-A restaurant
located at 12203 Pines Boulevard.
38. As a result of the Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of
dignity, mental anguish, and other tangible injuries. Each of the Plaintiffs have suffered an
injury in fact.
39. Plaintiffs intend to continue to patronize the Chick-fil-A restaurant in the future
and will continue to be injured in that each time they patronize the restaurant they will be denied
access to adequate parking, which is a violation of the ADA.
40. Plaintiffs have been obligated to retain the law offices of J. Courtney
Cunningham, PLLC and have agreed to pay a reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of
this cause, including costs and expenses incurred. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover those
attorney’s fees, costs and expenses from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205.
COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
41. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is landmark Civil Rights
legislation that is the result of decades of advocacy to improve the lives and role in society of all
persons with disabilities. The ADA was enacted and effective as of July 26, 1990. The ADA
legislation has been protecting disabled persons from discrimination due to disabilities for 30
years. As such, all public accommodations and facilities have had adequate time for compliance.
42. Congress found, among other things, that:
(i) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental

disabilities, and this number shall increase as the population continues to
grow older;
(ii) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with
disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination
11
against disabled individuals continue to be a pervasive social problem,

requiring serious attention;
(iii) discrimination against disabled individuals persists in such critical areas as

employment, housing, public accommodations, transportation,
communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting and
access to public services and public facilities;
(iv) Individuals with disabilities continually suffer forms of discrimination,

including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of
architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, failure to make
modifications to existing facilities and practices. Exclusionary
qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and regulation to lesser
services, programs, benefits, or other opportunities; and,
(v) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and

prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an
equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our country is
justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in
unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and non-productivity.
42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(1)-(3), (5) and (9).
43. Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA was to:
(i) provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(ii) provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and,
(iii) invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to

enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to
address the major areas of discrimination faced on a daily by people with
disabilities.
42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).
44. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B), Defendant’s restaurant is a place of public
accommodation and is subject to the ADA; therefore, it must be in compliance therewith.
12
45. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs and other individuals similarly
situated who are disabled and have designated disability parking placards, which is in derogation
of 28 C.F.R. Part 36.
46. Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against Plaintiffs by
denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendant’s Chick-fil-A restaurant as
prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §12182 et. seq., by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(a)(iv), where such removal is readily achievable.
47. Plaintiffs have been (and continue to be unable to) enjoy full, equal, and safe
access to the accommodations and services offered by Defendant at its restaurant located at
12203 Pines Boulevard.
48. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on July 26, 1991 (as amended),
the Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, promulgated Federal Regulations to
implement the requirements of the ADA, known as the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, under which said Department may obtain civil
penalties of up to $75,000 for the first violation and $150,000 for any subsequent violation.
49. The Chick-fila-A restaurant located at 12203 Pines Boulevard is in violation of 42
U.S.C. §12181 et seq., the ADA and 28 C.F.R. §36.302 et. seq., and is discriminating against the
Plaintiffs as a result of inter alia, the specific violations:
i. Failure to provide a minimum number of usable accessible parking spaces in
violation of 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Section 4.6.1.
13
ii. Failure to provide a usable compliant pathway from usable accessible parking
spaces to the restaurant located on the shortest route of travel from said accessible spaces to the
restaurant, in violation of 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Section 4.6.2.
iii. Failure to provide an adequate number of usable accessible handicap parking
spaces at the restaurant that comply with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Section 4.6.3;
iv. Failure to provide a usable accessible entrance for disabled individuals and/or
otherwise provide accessible and properly designated entrances as required by 28 C.F.R. Part 36.
Such failure represents insurmountable barriers to independent entry by individuals who use
wheelchairs and other assisted devices for mobility.
50. Pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq. and 28 C.F.R. §36.304, Defendant
has been required to make its restaurant located at 12203 Pines Boulevard and its parking lot
accessible to persons with disabilities since 1990. The Defendant has failed to comply with this
mandate.
51. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188, this Court is vested with the authority to grant the
Plaintiffs injunctive relief; including an order to alter the commercial property located at 12203
Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida so that it readily accessible to, and useable by,
individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Leslie Cooper, Jack Cooper and Erik Cooper respectfully pray
that this Honorable Court grant the following injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendant
Chick-fil-A, Inc. as follows:
a) The Court declare that the Chick-fil-A restaurant located at 12203 Pines
Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida which is owned, operated, leased, controlled and/or
administered by the Defendant, is violative of the ADA;
14
b) The Court enter an Order requiring Defendant to alter its commercial property
located at 12203 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida to make it accessible to and usable
by individuals with disabilities to the full extent required by the Title III of the ADA;
c) The Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize its
policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such reasonable time so as
to allow the Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures to the commercial
property located at 12203 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida;
d) The Court award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiffs; and
e) The Court award further relief as it deems necessary, just and proper.
Dated: April 9, 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
FBN: 628166
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, Florida 33156
Telephone: 305-351-2014
Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
15
Case 0:20-cv-60737-WPD Document
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) FLSD Revised 06/01/2017 1-1 COVER
CIVIL EnteredSHEET
on FLSD Docket 04/09/2020 Page 1 of 2
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose
of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed Cases Below.
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS LESLIE COOPER, JACK COOPER, and DEFENDANTS CHICK-FIL-A, INC.
ERIK COOPER
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, ESQ., 8950 SW 74TH COURT,
SUITE 2201, MIAMI, FL 33156; 305-351-2014
(d) Check County Where Action Arose: MIAMI- DADE MONROE ✔ BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✔ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729 (a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent – Abbreviated 460 Deportation
New Drug Application
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 840 Trademark 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 893 Environmental Matters
Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 26 Act/Review or Appeal of
Sentence USC 7609
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Other: Agency Decision
Accommodations
245 Tort Product Liability 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 530 General IMMIGRATION 950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes
290 All Other Real Property Employment 535 Death Penalty 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee –
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
Transferred from 6 Multidistrict
✔ 1 Original 2 Removed 3 Re-filed 4 Reinstated 5 7 Appeal to 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding from State (See VI or another district Litigation
District Judge Litigation 9 Remanded from
Appellate Court
Court below) Reopened (specify) Transfer
from Magistrate – Direct
Judgment File
VI. RELATED/ (See instructions): a) Re-filed Case YES ✔ NO b) Related Cases YES ✔ NO
RE-FILED CASE(S) JUDGE: DOCKET NUMBER:
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF TITLE III OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
LENGTH OF TRIAL via days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)
VIII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
JURY DEMAND: Yes ✔ No
ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
04/09/2020
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE
Case 0:20-cv-60737-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2020 Page 2 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) FLSD Revised 06/01/2017
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the
official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment,
noting in this section “(see attachment)”.
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in
one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and
box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4
is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature
of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Refiled (3) Attach copy of Order for Dismissal of Previous case. Also complete VI.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict
litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this
box is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (8) Check this box if remanded from Appellate Court.
VI. Related/Refiled Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases or re-filed cases. Insert the docket numbers and the
corresponding judges name for such cases.
VII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VIII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Southern
__________ District
District of Florida
of __________
LESLIE COOPER, JACK COOPER and )

ERIK COOPER )
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
CHICK-FIL-A, INC. )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) CHICK-FIL-A, INC.

c/o Registered Agent CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S. PINE ISLAND ROAD
PLANTATION, FL 33324
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
T: 305-351-2014
cc@cunninghampllc.com
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Chick Fil A Disabilities Drive Thru

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chick Fil A Disabilities Drive Thru

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 0:20-cv-60737-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2020 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

3. Plaintiff Leslie Cooper (also referenced as “Leslie Cooper,” or collectively with

ADA as defined in 28 C.F.R. §36.105(b)(2) and 28 C.F.R. §36.105(2)(iii)(D). Due to her

to a back injury which limits his major life activities.

and 28 C.F.R. §36.105(2)(iii)(D).

7. Defendant Chick-fil-A, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a privately held company which is

8. Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is conducting, the business of operating a

which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

9. Defendant’s Chick-fil-A restaurant is open to the general public and therefore is a

as “Chick-fil-A,” “restaurant,” or “place of public accommodation.”

owns, or operates a restaurant; 42 U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(B), 28 C.F.R. §36.104.

and marked to provide for two disabled accessible parking spaces.

accessible parking spaces to disabled patrons of the restaurant.

‘to go’ orders. These obstructions are depicted at Fig. 1:

to park in the only two disability parking spaces, as depicted at Fig. 2:

disability parking spaces are located.

prior to instituting this instant action.

number of vehicles blocking both of the designated disability parking spaces.

of Defendant’s owner/operator, Nick Christiantiello. Erik filled out a “Chick-fil-A Cares”

23. On September 26, 2019, the Defendant’s representative2 responded to Plaintiffs’

parking lot.” Plaintiffs respectfully disagree.

redesign of the drive-thru lane.

25. Denial of access to disability-accessible parking spaces was repeated on

Plaintiffs’ lunch and dinner time visits on:

September 23, 2019

September 24, 2019

September 27, 2019

October 19, 2019

October 26, 2019

October 31, 2019

November 11, 2019

December 28, 2019

and continues up until the date of the filing of this action.

because the disability-accessible parking spaces were “closed.”

for drive-thru ‘to go’ orders:

lunch and dinner time periods.

the restaurant for the disabled trio.

promotions and the busy lunch and dinner time periods.

acceptance of the needs of disabled individuals, which is in violation of 28 C.F.R. Part 36

Sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2, and 4.6.3.

located at 12203 Pines Boulevard.

38. As a result of the Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of

access to adequate parking, which is a violation of the ADA.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

42. Congress found, among other things, that:

(i) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental

against disabled individuals continue to be a pervasive social problem,

(iii) discrimination against disabled individuals persists in such critical areas as

(iv) Individuals with disabilities continually suffer forms of discrimination,

(v) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and

42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(1)-(3), (5) and (9).

(ii) provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing

(iii) invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to

42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

44. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(B), Defendant’s restaurant is a place of public

accommodation and is subject to the ADA; therefore, it must be in compliance therewith.

of 28 C.F.R. Part 36.

46. Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against Plaintiffs by

privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendant’s Chick-fil-A restaurant as

42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(a)(iv), where such removal is readily achievable.