37.  Defendants own, operate, lease and/or control Applebee’s restaurants throughout  Pennsylvania and the United States.    38.  As part of these operations, Defendants serve food and/or drinks at a bar area in  each restaurant.   40.  Plaintiff desired to be served at the restaurant’s bar dining area, and more  specifically, desired to be served at and use the bar-top dining surface; however, Defendants have  failed to provide accessible seating at the bar-counter dining surface for Plaintiff and others  similarly situated to utilize.   41.  The restaurant also did not have accessible seating in the bar’s lounge area.   43.  Defendants’ policy and practice of failing to provide individuals with mobility  disabilities accessible dining surfaces or accessible seating in its bar dining areas is discriminatory,  segregationist, and in violation of the ADA.   45.  Plaintiff intends to continue to test Defendants’ Restaurants.   46.  Plaintiff has been, and in the absence of an injunction will continue to be, injured  by Defendants’ policy and practice of failing to provide accessible dining areas to persons with  disabilities.  47.  Plaintiff brings this action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the federal rules of civil  procedure and on behalf of herself 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 bar counter dining  services offered to patrons at Defendants’ Restaurants located within the United  States because of the lack of accessible bar counter dining surface seating at those  restaurants.   48.  Numerosity: The class described above is so numerous that joinder of all individual  members in one action would be impracticable.  The disposition of the individual claims of the  respective class members through this class action will benefit both the parties and the Court, and  will facilitate judicial economy.     49.  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.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class  because her interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiff will  fairly, adequately, and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the members of the class  and has no interests antagonistic to the members of the class.  Plaintiff has retained counsel who  are competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation, generally, and who  possess specific expertise in the context of class litigation under the ADA.   52.  Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because  Defendants have 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.  53.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the  previous paragraphs.   54.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the defined putative class  of individuals similarly situated.   55.  Plaintiff is an individual with a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair for  mobility. Plaintiff, accordingly, is an individual with a disability pursuant to the ADA, in that  Plaintiff suffers a physical impairment substantially limiting one or more major life activities.    Violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.  