38.  Within the applicable limitations period, in the spring of 2019, Plaintiff patronized  Defendant’s property located at 380 Beaver Valley Mall Blvd #655, Monaca, PA 15061 (the  “Subject Property").   40.  Plaintiff has shopped at Defendant’s stores in the past, including within the past  month. During his visits to Defendant’s stores, he has repeatedly encountered interior access  barriers which have precluded him equal access to Defendant’s goods and services in violation of  the ADA’s equal access mandate. Plaintiff would shop at Defendant’s stores more often, and with  less difficulty, if the interior access barriers are removed.   43.  The barriers depicted above illustrate some, but not all, of the types of interior  access barriers at Defendant’s stores. Collectively, these barriers impeded Plaintiff’s access to  goods and services at Defendant’s stores.   44.  As a result of Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA, Plaintiff’s rights to full  and equal, non-discriminatory, and safe access to Defendant’s goods and facilities has been denied.   45.  Plaintiff will be deterred from returning to and fully and safely accessing  Defendant’s facilities so long as Defendant’s facilities remain non-compliant, and so long as  Defendant continues to employ the same policies and practices that have led, and in the future will  lead, to inaccessibility at Defendant’s facilities.   46.  Nonetheless, Plaintiff will continue to visit Defendant’s stores that are close to his  home, both to attempt to access goods and services in those stores and to survey the stores for  compliance with the ADA.   47.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff will continue to be unable to fully and safely  access Defendant’s facilities in violation of his rights under the ADA.   48.  As an individual with a mobility disability who is dependent upon a wheelchair,  Plaintiff is directly interested in whether public accommodations, like Defendant’s facilities, have  access barriers that impede full accessibility to those accommodations by individuals with  mobility-related disabilities.  II.  Defendant Denies Individuals With Disabilities Full and Equal Access to its Facilities.   50.  As the owner, operator, and/or manager of its properties, Defendant employs  centralized policies, practices, and procedures with regard to the design, construction, alteration,  maintenance, and operation of its facilities.   51.  However, as set forth herein, these policies, practices, and procedures are  inadequate in that Defendant’s facilities are operated and maintained in violation of the  accessibility requirements of Title III of the ADA.    52.  As evidenced by the widespread inaccessibility of Defendant’s stores visited by  Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Investigator, absent a change in Defendant’s corporate policies and  practices, access barriers are likely to reoccur in Defendant’s facilities even after they have been  remediated in the first instance.   53.  Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to remove the barriers currently present  at Defendant’s facilities and an injunction to modify the policies and practices that have created or  allowed, and will create or allow, access barriers in Defendant’s stores.  54.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), individually  and on behalf of the following classes:   a. All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have attempted, or  will attempt, to access the interior of any store owned or operated by  Defendant within the United States and have, or will have, experienced  access barriers in interior paths of travel.  b. All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have attempted, or  will attempt, to access the interior of any store owned or operated by  Defendant within Pennsylvania and have, or will have, experienced  access barrier in interior paths of travel.   56.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class.  The claims of Plaintiff and members of the class are based on the same legal theories and arise  from the same unlawful conduct.   57.  Common Questions of Fact and Law: There is a well-defined community of interest  and common questions of fact and law affecting members of the class in that they all have been  and/or are being denied their civil rights to full and equal access to, and use and enjoyment of,  Defendant’s facilities and/or services due to Defendant’s failure to make its facilities fully  accessible and independently usable as above described. The questions of law and fact that are  common to the class include:  a. Whether Defendant operates places of public accommodation and are subject to Title  III of the ADA and its implementing regulations;  b. Whether storing merchandise in interior aisles of the stores makes the stores  inaccessible to Plaintiff and putative class members; and,  c. Whether Defendant’s storage, stocking and setup policies and practices discriminate  against Plaintiff and putative class members in violation of Title III of the ADA and its  implementing regulations.   59.  Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making  appropriate both declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the class as a whole.  60.  Defendant has failed, and continues to fail, to provide individuals who use  wheelchairs or scooters with full and equal enjoyment of its facilities.   61.  Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and the class in that Defendant has  failed to make Defendant’s facilities fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals  who use wheelchairs or scooters in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) as described above; Section  403.5.1 of the 2010 Standards.   62.  Defendant’s conduct is ongoing and continuous, and Plaintiff has been harmed by  Defendant’s conduct.   63.  Unless Defendant is restrained from continuing its ongoing and continuous course  of conduct, Defendant will continue to violate the ADA and will continue to inflict injury upon  Plaintiff and the class.   I.  Plaintiff Has Been Denied Full and Equal Access to Defendant’s Facilities.  