|
|
$200,000 for a bad weekend?
One disabled attorney, who has filed more than 2,000 access lawsuits against California businesses, is demanding over $200,000 from just 67 historic small businesses in a small mountain community in California. Apparently, this attorney went to this community one weekend and found a number of properties which did not provide a level of disabled access he considered appropriate. Although this community was hard hit by recent firestorms which destroyed many homes, and the unprecedented drop in visitors which resulted, this attorney is demanding $200,000 from the businesses, and increased his demands day-by-day when they were not accepted. | 
Click to view |
|
|
|
|
Many have questioned why-- if access is what this attorney really wants, and not the $200,000 he is demanding-- he woud impose deadlines of only a few days to respond to the 60+ pages of settlement demands he is making (and why he would do this so close to the Thanksgivng holidays, when many businesses and their attorneys are unavailable).
Because striking an appropriate balance between the obligation to preserve historic property with the legitimate need of the disabled to experience it, many have questioned why this attorney imposed deadlines of only a few days for these businesses to respond to his demands before they increased. Surely he had to know that it is difficult to get accurate information about the obligations of historic property owners and it would be nearly impossible to get qualified legal advice before the deadlines he imposed expired!
As a highly experienced attorney, he had to know that he was sending demand letters to unrepresented parties; we'd hate to think that he set his deadlines so close to make it difficult for them to get advice in time to avoid an increased demand! This law firm has been criticized for mailing demand letters with responses due on or about the same day they were sent!
- If you received a demand letter from this law firm at, or after, the deadline they provided for you to respond, please Contact Us.
- If you were told that you did not respond to a demand letter sent by this law firm, and would have to pay more because they had already started work on a lawsuit against you, please Contact Us.
|
Read what one Chief Judge said about a P&W "frequent filer":
" . . . [P]laintiffs, like plaintiffs here, use the ADA, and its California counterparts, as tools of extortion." [pg 12, fn 8]
"As far as the Court can tell, Singletary's sole purpose for attaching an ADA claim is to get his state claims into federal court" [pg. 14, lns 3-4] | 
|
Disabled Access Lawsuits for the Dead? Each of the lawsuits in this section was filed on behalf of the estate of a plaintiff who had filed over 80 access lawsuits. In the first posted below, the plaintiff claimed to visit 15 different businesses in the same day-- including 6 different restaurants! [see paragraph 17]. In the second and third lawsuits, the plaintiff also went to another fast food restaurant and a toy store, that very same day! [see paragraph 8 of each] Interestingly, at paragraphs 68, 17 and 18, respectively, the complaints claim that the decesaed plaintiff would like to return to these facilities. Plaintiff claimed to suffer injuries in each of these lawsuits, at paragraphs 98, 46 and 47 respectively. |
ORGANIZATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF MINORITIES WITH DISABILITIES |
|
This website is brought to you by ADAaccountability and Citizens Against Predatory Lawsuits. By your continued viewing or use of this website you thereby agree to and acknowledge the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy. If you do not acknowledge and agree to those terms and conditions, please leave this site immediately and make no further use of any of the content therein.
© 2003-06 ADA Accountability |
|
|
|
 |
 |
