35.  Plaintiff has repeatedly visited Defendant’s stores including Defendant’s store  located at 2011 Route 19, Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania (the “Subject Property”) and  encountered unlawful and discriminatory interior access barriers including, but not necessarily  limited to, merchandise displays, boxes, and ladders positioned so that they block or narrow the  aisle pathways in violation of the requirements of the 2010 Standards Section 403.5.1.   37.  As a result of Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA, Plaintiff’s right to full  and equal, non-discriminatory, and safe access to Defendant’s goods and facilities has been denied.   39.  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.   40.  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.   41.  Defendant is engaged in the ownership, management, operation, and development  of retail stores throughout the United States, including, upon information and belief, approximately  1550 stores in the United States, of which there are, upon information and belief, 31 in  Pennsylvania.   42.  As the owner and manager of its properties, Defendant employs centralized  policies, practices, and procedures with regard to the design, construction, alteration, maintenance,  and operation of its facilities.   43.  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.    45.  As evidenced by the widespread inaccessibility of Defendant’s stores, 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.   46.  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.  47.  Plaintiff brings this action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the federal rules of civil  procedure individually and on behalf of the following classes:   All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have attempted, or will  attempt, to access the interior of any store owned or operated by Defendant in  Pennsylvania and have, or will have, experienced discriminatory access to  Defendant goods due to Defendant failure to comply with the ADA’s  prohibition against access barriers in interior paths of travel.   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.   50.  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.   52.  Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because  Defendant 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.  Defendant has failed, and continues to fail, to provide individuals who use  wheelchairs or scooters with full and equal enjoyment of its facilities.   54.  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 210 Standards.   55.  Defendant’s conduct is ongoing and continuous, and Plaintiff has been harmed by  Defendant’s conduct.   56.  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.   57.  Given that Defendant has not complied with the ADA’s requirements to make  Defendant’s facilities fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals who use  wheelchairs or scooters, Plaintiff invokes his statutory rights to declaratory and injunctive relief,  as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.  I.  Plaintiff Has Been Denied Full and Equal Access to Defendant’s Facilities.  