33.  Defendant owns, manages and/or operates hotels throughout the United States.     34.  As a fundamental part of these operations, Defendant provides hotel rooms with  sleeping beds to its customers.   35.  Within the applicable limitations period, Plaintiff called the Courtyard by Marriott  located in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania (“Coraopolis Courtyard”) and was told by an agent of  Defendant that the Coraopolis Courtyard provides accessible rooms for its guests but that the  sleeping beds in these rooms have a sleeping surface that is 27 inches from the floor.   36.  The seat height for Plaintiff’s wheelchair is approximately 18 inches from the  ground, and the average height of wheelchair seats generally is 18-20 inches.      37.  The sleeping surfaces of the beds in Defendant’s accessible rooms are sufficiently  high that they render it difficult if not impossible for Plaintiff to independently transfer from his  wheelchair to the bed.    38.  Plaintiff can safely, easily, and independently transfer to horizontal surfaces that  are approximately the same height as his wheelchair seat, such as dining chairs, toilet seats,  benches, and lower passenger vehicle seats.    39.  Transferring to horizontal surfaces that are significantly higher than his wheelchair  seat is difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff; he must hoist his bodyweight up to the height of the  higher surface using primarily upper body strength.   41.  An investigation performed on Plaintiff’s behalf confirmed that the bed heights in  Defendant’s accessible rooms are, in most cases, between 25 and 31 inches from the ground and  are therefore not readily accessible to Plaintiff and the proposed class.     42.  The investigation performed on behalf of Plaintiff further confirmed that, in  addition to the Coraopolis Courtyard, Defendant owns, manages and/or operates a substantial  number of other hotels in the United States that offer purportedly accessible rooms with bed  sleeping surfaces that are too high to be accessible to wheelchair or scooter users.   48.  Plaintiff brings this action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the federal rules of civil  procedure and on behalf of himself and the following class: “All individuals who use wheelchairs  or scooters for mobility and who have been, or in the future will be, denied the full and equal  enjoyment of accessible sleeping surfaces (beds) at hotels owned, operated and/or controlled by  Defendant.    50.  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.   51.  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 goods, services and facilities due to the policies and practices described above.  The questions of law and fact common to the class include, but are not limited to:  A. Whether Defendant owns, operates and/or controls places of public  accommodation subject to Title III of the ADA, and its implementing  regulations;  B. Whether Defendant provides accessible sleeping surfaces in its hotel rooms;  C. Whether Defendant adequately disperses guest rooms that have accessible  sleeping surfaces; and  D. Whether Defendant’s policies and practices discriminate against Plaintiff and  the putative class members in violation of Title III of the ADA and its  implementing regulations.    53.  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.  54.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation herein.   55.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the class.   56.  Plaintiff is an individual with a disability under the ADA.  42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).   57.  Defendant provides public accommodations under the ADA.  42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).   58.  Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities 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.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).   59.  Defendant operates hotels, or “places lodging,” that are places of public  accommodation under Title III of the ADA. Id.   60.  Defendant has engaged in illegal disability discrimination by, without limitation,  failing to ensure that the beds or sleeping surfaces in use at the hotels it manages and/or operates  are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use  wheelchairs,.    62.  Defendant’s ongoing and continuing violations of Title III have caused, and in the  absence to an injunction will continue to cause harm to the Plaintiff and the class.   63.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.  For Violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.  