36.  Defendants own and operate approximately 480 Applebee’s restaurant franchises  across 23 states throughout the United States. Defendants are the largest Applebee’s franchisee  and are one of the largest franchisees in the United States.    37.  In early 2019, Plaintiff patronized Defendants’ Applebee’s restaurant located at  Steubenville Pike, 6570 PA-60, Pittsburgh, PA 15205 (the “Subject Property”).   38.  Plaintiff regularly travels in and around the area where the Subject Property is  located for shopping and dining. During these trips, he regularly visits restaurants for dining and  to socialize with friends. Plaintiff wishes to access goods and services offered at Defendants’  restaurants during these trips.    41.  Defendants’ failure 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. Just as Defendants could not exclude customers from the bar area based  upon race, the ADA precludes Defendants from segregating customers based upon disability.    42.  Though Plaintiff is serving as a tester in this case, Plaintiff has visited and enjoyed  Defendants’ restaurants in the past and would like to patronize Defendants’ restaurants, including  the Subject Property, in the future and be served at the bar; however, the lack of accessible seating  at the bar’s dining surface has, and does, deter Plaintiff from patronizing Defendants’ restaurants.   44.  Plaintiff has been, and in the absence of an injunction will continue to be, injured  by Defendants’ failure to provide accessible dining surfaces and seating to persons with  disabilities.  45.  Plaintiff brings this action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure on behalf of himself and the following classes:   (1) 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  Pennsylvania because of the lack of accessible bar counter dining surface  seating at those restaurants.  (2) 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 all other of Defendants’ restaurants located  within the United States because of the lack of accessible bar counter dining  surface seating at those restaurants.   46.  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.     47.  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.   49.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class  because his 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.   50.  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.  51.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the  previous paragraphs.   52.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the defined putative class  of individuals similarly situated.   53.  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.  