Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TAYLOR PRICE,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 09-cv-1709-RMC

v.

KIMBERLY, INC.
d/b/a MR. SMITH’S OF GEORGETOWN

&

MR. SMITH’S MANAGEMENT

COMPANY, INC.
d/b/a MR. SMITH’S OF GEORGETOWN,

Defendants.

ANSWER

Defendants Kimberly, Inc. and Mr. Smith’s Management Company, Inc. (collectively,

“Mr. Smith’s” or “Defendants”) by their attorneys, state as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations. Defendants admit the allegation to the extent that this is an action for violations of

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. and the

District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code §§ 2-1401.01 et seq.
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 2 of 13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the

Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response is

required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 2 to the extent they conflict with the law.

3. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the

Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response is

required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 3 to the extent they conflict with the law

4. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. Defendants neither

admit nor deny the other allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint on the basis that

no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

those allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

5. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the

Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response is

required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff Taylor Price

6. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

2
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 3 of 13

7. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

8. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

9. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the

Complaint to the extent that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response is

required to such allegations, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the

law.

Defendant Kimberly, Inc.

10. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint that

Defendant Kimberly, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia

and has an address at 3104 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007. Kimberly, Inc. owns and

operates a bar under the trade name “Mr. Smith’s of Georgetown.”

11. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

3
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 4 of 13

12. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

13. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

Defendants admit, however, the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint to the

extent that Defendant Kimberly, Inc, owns and operates Mr. Smith’s of Georgetown. Further,

Defendants neither admit nor deny any other allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the

Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response is

required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

14. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

Defendants admit, however, the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint to the

extent that Defendant Kimberly, Inc. transacts business in Washington, D.C. and owns and

operates Mr. Smith’s of Georgetown. Further, Defendants neither admit nor deny the other

allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations

are asserted. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the

extent they conflict with the law.

Defendant Mr. Smith’s Management Company, Inc.

15. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint that

Defendant Mr. Smith’s Management Company, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of

the District of Columbia and has an address at 3104 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Smith’s Management Company, Inc. manages and operates

Mr. Smith’s of Georgetown.

4
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 5 of 13

16. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

17. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

Defendants admit, however, the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint to the

extent that Defendant Mr. Smith’s Management Company owns and operates Mr. Smith’s of

Georgetown. Further, Defendants neither admit nor deny any other allegations contained in

Paragraph 17 of the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent

that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the

law.

18. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

Defendants admit, however, the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint to the

extent that Defendant Mr. Smith’s Management Company transacts business in Washington,

D.C. and owns and operates Mr. Smith’s of Georgetown. Further, Defendants neither admit nor

deny the other allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint on the basis that no factual

allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the

allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

ALLEGED FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

19. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint that

Mr. Smith’s of Georgetown, a restaurant and piano bar, is a popular location for D.C. residents

and local college students, and particularly in Georgetown, to gather and celebrate events. The

5
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 6 of 13

sign outside Mr. Smith’s – which is also found on the website and other advertising declares that

the establishment is “the friendliest saloon in town.”

20. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

21. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

22. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 22.

23. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.

24. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24. Defendants admit

the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 to the extent that Mr. Price had been to the back of the

bar on several occasions.

25. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25.

26. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.

27. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 27.

28. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.

29. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

6
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 7 of 13

allegations. Defendants admit the allegation that at a manager’s direction, a doorman escorted

Mr. Price and Ms. Ward out of the bar.

30. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 30. Defendants admit

the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 to the extent that Mr. Price and Ms. Ward were

escorted out a side door to the street.

31. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 31.

32. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. Defendants admit

the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 to the extent that the manager told Mr. Price, “We have

nothing further to discuss,” and went back inside Mr. Smith’s of Georgetown.

33. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

34. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

35. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

7
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 8 of 13

36. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations.

37. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 37of the Complaint.

Defendants admit, however, the allegation contained in Paragraph 37of the Complaint to the

extent that they were given advance notice of this suit by letter dated August 26, 2009.

38. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore, deny such

allegations. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the

Complaint to the extent that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response is

required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

COUNT I
(Violation of Title III of the ADA for Denial of Access)

39. Defendants reallege and reassert their Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 38 as if

fully set forth herein.

40. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

41. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

8
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 9 of 13

42. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

43. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.

44. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.

45. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

COUNT II
(Violation of Title III of the ADA for Unequal Treatment)

46. Defendants reallege and reassert their Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 45 as if

fully set forth herein.

47. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

48. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.

49. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.

50. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.

51. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.

COUNT III
(Violation of Title III of the ADA for Imposition of Eligibility Criteria)

52. Defendants reallege and reassert their Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 51 as if

fully set forth herein.

9
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 10 of 13

53. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

54. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

55. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.

56. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.

57. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.

COUNT IV
(Violation of Title III of the ADA for Failure to Modify Policies)

58. Defendants reallege and reassert their Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 57 as if

fully set forth herein.

59. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

60. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint.

61. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.

62. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.

63. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.

10
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 11 of 13

COUNT V
(Violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act)

64. Defendants reallege and reassert their Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 63 as if

fully set forth herein.

65. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 of

the Complaint on the basis that no factual allegations are asserted. To the extent that a response

is required, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they conflict with the law.

66. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.

67. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.

68. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint.

69. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants assert the affirmative defenses set forth below. By pleading these affirmative

defenses, Defendants do not intend to alter the burden of proof and/or burden of persuasion that

otherwise exists with respect to any issues in this action.

First Affirmative Defense

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Second Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff’s claims are barred for lack of standing.

11
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 12 of 13

Third Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3).

Fourth Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands.

Fifth Affirmative Defense

Defendants reserve all rights to assert any additional affirmative defenses to those

asserted herein.

Dated: November 9, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

KIMBERLY, INC. d/b/a MR. SMITH’S OF

GEORGETOWN and MR. SMITH’S
MANAGEMENT CO., INC. d/b/a MR.
SMITH’S OF GEORGETOWN
by Counsel

By: _/s/_______________________________
Todd A. Bromberg (D.C. Bar No. 472554)
Jamie A. Aycock (D.C. Bar No. 974343)
Wiley Rein LLP
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 719-7000
Fax: (202) 719-7049

Attorneys for Kimberly, Inc. d/b/a Mr. Smith’s of

Georgetown and Mr. Smith’s Management Co.,
Inc. d/b/a Mr. Smith’s of Georgetown

12
 Case 1:09-cv-01709-RMC Document 3 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 9th day of November, 2009 a copy of the foregoing document
was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system upon the following:

J. Douglas Baldridge (D.C. Bar #437678)

Danielle R. Foley (D.C. Bar #464482)
Joeann E. Walker (Not Admitted in D.C.)
VENABLE LLP
575 7th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel.: 202.344.4703
Fax: 202.344.8300

E. Elaine Gardner (D.C. Bar #271262)

WASHINGTON LAWYERS’
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND
URBAN AFFAIRS
11 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel.: 202.319.1000
Fax: 202.319.1010

________/s/______________________
Jamie A. Aycock

13