Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
The popular eatery, which has been spotlighted by the Food Network show “Diners, Drive-ins and Dives”, is famous for being cramped, as its name implies. So here comes the inevitable wheelchair-access suit by a plaintiff represented by serial Northern California ADA-suit filer Jason Singleton. [California Civil Justice, Popehat; restaurant site] More on Singleton’s activities: North Coast Journal cover story, 2001, and May 2008 coverage.
{ 4 comments }
{ 2 comments }
If you guessed that this is another California disabled-access case, you’re right:
{ 3 comments }
{ 5 comments }
Okay, it’s not going to win any graphics awards. But it’s got lots of information about abusive disabled-access suits in California.
{ 2 comments }
Today I testified before the Senate Republican Conference about the effect on the economy of excessive litigation. A podcast is available on-line and, for the insomniacs among you, the hearing will be broadcast on C-SPAN tonight at 10:56 PM Eastern and again at 2:09 AM Eastern. Also testifying was Life Without Lawyers author Philip Howard; Crystal Chodes, who lost her job because of the expense of a meritless ADA filing mill suit; Texas doctor David Teuscher; and arbitration expert and University of Kansas law professor Christopher Drahozal.
If you just prefer reading what I have to say, my written testimony is on-line also:
The total loss to the economy from excessive tort litigation above and beyond a baseline of an employment at will regime and an average industrialized tort system can be estimated at between over $600 billion and over $900 billion a year, 4.3% to 6.5% of GNP, or a tort tax of between $8,000 and $12,000/year for an average family of four. And this is very much a conservative estimate, as other economists find much stronger effects than I have estimated here, as I have not tried to estimate a number of identifiable secondary and tertiary effects of excessive tort litigation on allocation of economic resources, and as I have not tried to estimate the likely effect of recent Congressional expansions of tort liability in the last twelve months.
I was pleased to hear from multiple Congressional staffers who are regular Overlawyered readers: one even surreptitiously added the website into my official biography. Carter Wood talks about the hearing and Senator Cornyn’s remarks over at Point of Law.
Update: video on-line at C-SPAN; my segment begins at 43:15 or so. And C-SPAN2 is rebroadcasting at 4:16 pm Eastern on Tuesday, March 17, which suggests that my appearance will be at about 5 pm Eastern.
{ 3 comments }
Must stores let in “social support” goats? Hot ADA issue we’ve often covered makes it into NYTimes mag [Rebecca Skloot] And Time mag tackles scandal of ADA-suit mass filing for $$, long familiar to our readers [Alison Stateman]
Can you guess mechanism by which snow globes turned out to cause fire hazard? (Then check link.) [K.C. Business Journal]
“Do Not Track” legislation could torpedo online-advertising models [ReadWriteWeb h/t @lilyhill]
What if plea-bargaining defendants could give D.A.s eBay-style feedback? [Greenfield]
UK cabinet minister wants govt to regulate Net with aim of child safety, Brit blogger says – hell, no! [Perry de Havilland, Samizdata]
As lawyer-driven mummeries go, which is worse, coffee machine overwarning or medical “informed consent”? [Happy Hospitalist]
Bogus memoirs nowadays spawn real lawsuits, as we remember from James Frey case [Elefant]
Is health care prohibition in our future? [KevinMD]
Massachusetts child support guidelines said to be highly onerous for dads already and getting worse [Bader, CEI]
Kid gloves from some local media for Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd & his magic mortgages [Christopher Fountain and again]
Had Robertson v. Princeton donor-intent suit gone to trial, lawyers might have billed $120 million hourly fees. How’d the number get that high? [Kennerly, Litigation & Trial and again]
A reminder: these microblog posts are based on a selection of my contributions to Twitter, which you can “follow” here.
{ 1 comment }
{ 5 comments }
Many small businesses in the historic and much-visited neighborhood have been hit with ADA complaints, often from the law offices of famed serial ADA filer Thomas Frankovich. (Carol Lloyd, “Surreal estate: ADA accessibility lawsuits causing headaches for small business owners”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jun. 13). “I’ve seen the ADA racket threaten businesses in other towns, and they ended up closing. The owner [of a small chocolate shop that has now laid off three workers] has never gotten a formal complaint from a wheelchair-bound person, except for this suit.” (”SF_Anna”, “North Beach Block Threatened by ADA Suits”, MetBlogs, Aug. 20).
“I have no problem being accused of being a professional whatever,” says Allen Fox, who’s filed 139 disabled-accessibility lawsuits over six years in concert with attorney Samuel Aurelio, as many as eight of the similarly worded complaints in a day. Most of the complaints result in the payment of legal fees and Fox, of West Palm Beach, Fla., pays nothing on the rare occasions he loses.
Aurilio, who has filed 274 ADA cases in Florida, including Fox’s, laments that a few lawyers have given all of those who fight for the disabled a bad name. The poster child is a North Miami lawyer who in 2003 was sanctioned by U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks for filing 13 lawsuits on behalf of a man he claimed was a quadriplegic who later walked in to give his deposition in one of the cases.Not only was the man not disabled, he “did not know what a quadriplegic was, and when the term was explained to him, he was repulsed by the thought of being so incapacitated,” Middlebrooks wrote in a blistering 18-page order sanctioning lawyer Lawrence Fuller.
Fuller was also admonished by the Florida Bar; by one estimate, he’d taken in $3 million in his ADA practice by that point. (Jane Musgrave, “‘Pro Plaintiff’ Crusades for Disabled Access”, Palm Beach Post/Lakeland Ledger, May 12).
{ 1 comment }
Three years ago we noted (following reporting by Ed Lowe and J.E. Espino of the Appleton, Wis. Post-Crescent) (more) that
Representatives of the Hollywood, Fla.-based law firm of Schwartz Zweben & Associates have played a substantial role behind the scenes in helping organize, promote and support the Ms. Wheelchair America pageant and some of its state affiliates. And lawyers with the firm have filed more than 200 lawsuits in at least seven states and the District of Columbia on behalf of at least 13 pageant participants, “including state and national titleholders, state coordinators and pageant judges”.
Now the Birmingham, Ala. News follows up on the case of Colleen Macort, Ms. Wheelchair Florida 2002, who has filed more than 73 disabled-accessibility actions in Alabama “but has never spent a day in court because of settlements”. Local law provides that Macort cannot be compensated for filing the lawsuits, but the Wisconsin paper reported that the firm of Schwartz Zweben had engaged her as a consultant on other cases. The reporter is kind enough to quote me and mention this site (Liz Ellaby, “Bessemer woman crusades to address disability act violations, provoking critics”, Birmingham News, Jul. 3).
In the state of Washington, Ms. Wheelchair Washington 2005, Michelle Beardshear, has teamed up with the Florida firm to file 15 lawsuits, of which twelve have been settled, against enterprises in Clark County (Kathie Durbin, “Advocate for disabled not hesitant to sue for access”, The Columbian, May 27 courtesy Chamber ILR). And in March, Schwartz Zweben & Slingbaum (as it is now called) swooped down to sue twelve defendants in the Tucson area, including a number of well-known restaurants, alleging ADA violations. (Josh Brodesky, “12 Tucson businesses facing suits alleging Disabilities Act problems”, Arizona Daily Star, Mar. 28).
{ 10 comments }
Even rural Northern California affords no refuge from the filing mills:
Eureka’s Arctic Circle franchise has closed its doors after the restaurant was sued for noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Jack Williams, who has owned the franchise with his wife, Peggy, since 1989, said the couple decided to close the business last Tuesday because they cannot afford the renovations required by the lawsuit.
The suit was filed by local attorney Jason K. Singleton, who in recent years has filed ADA-related suits against a number of local establishments, including Village Pantry, Broadway Cinema, Fortuna Theatre, Cafe Waterfront and College of the Redwoods, among others. …
“Here we had a business that was serving all kinds of customers and now is serving no one,” Hockaday [J Warren Hockaday, executive director of the Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce] said.
(Ryan Burns, “Arctic Circle closes due to ADA lawsuit”, The Times-Standard, May 6; earlier).
{ 4 comments }
It looks as if, barring intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, serial ADA litigant Jarek Molski and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich, longtime Overlawyered favorites both, won’t be filing any more accessibility lawsuits in California’s populous Central District. The Ninth Circuit’s decision not to disturb an order to that effect by the late Judge Edward Rafeedie, however, came by a surprisingly narrow margin, with nine judges dissenting. Among them, Judge Marsha Berzon said Rafeedie should not have acted unilaterally to bar the two from suing throughout the district, while Alex Kozinski went so far as to maintain that Rafeedie had failed to offer evidence in suggesting “that Molski is a liar and a bit of a thief”. The majority of judges, however — and the Ninth is among the last circuits anyone would accuse of an excessive wish to shut down litigation — disagreed. (Dan Levine, “9th Circuit Judges Blast Order Barring ADA Lawyer”, The Recorder, Apr. 9). One final bit from the account in the Recorder might cause the reader’s jaw to drop open, as it did mine:
Rafeedie died of cancer late last month, but Frankovich still holds a grudge.
“What he did is morally reprehensible,” the attorney said Monday. “Acting morally reprehensible creates bad karma, and sometimes you have to pay the piper for bad karma.”
In other news of vexatious California litigants:
For years, self-described public-interest litigator Burton Wolfe has bragged that he was one of the few people to get off the state’s so-called vexatious litigant list for self-represented plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits. Those who are put on the list can file “pro per,” or do-it-yourself, lawsuits only with a judge’s permission. But after enjoying a few years off the blacklist, the 75-year-old Wolfe has sued his way back onto the roster. … [His name was restored to the list after] he sued the San Francisco Food Bank and America’s Second Harvest for setting up what he calls a food “racket” in the privately owned low-income senior-housing Eastern Park Apartments where he lives.
(Lauren Smiley, “Vexatious Litigant Burton Wolfe Fighting Eviction After Threatening More Lawsuits”, San Francisco Weekly, Feb. 20). Perhaps the most celebrated of modern San Francisco’s vexatious litigants is Patricia A. McColm, who has been profiled in a number of news stories including Ken Garcia, “Woman who sues at drop of hat may get hers”, San Francisco Chronicle, June 6, 2000, reprinted at Forensic Psychiatric Associates site. Incidentally, the British court system is thoughtful enough to post its list of vexatious litigants online, an obvious aid to persons who might find themselves the target of threatened suits by persons on the list. But although the California courts have a webpage discussing the fact of their having a list, I could find no sign that they had posted the list itself online. Have any U.S. states (or Canadian provinces, etc.) done so?
{ 2 comments }
The high-profile Los Angeles attorney, who’s made frequent appearances in these pages, is headed to federal prison following his conviction for tax evasion, money laundering and bankruptcy fraud (see Jun. 24). U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson chided Yagman for testimony “so transparently untrue in so many areas.” (Scott Glover, “Attorney Yagman sentenced to 3 years for tax evasion, fraud”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 28). Best known for his lawsuits against police departments, the much-criticized Yagman has also represented the principals in a famous Americans with Disabilities Act filing mill that launches mass complaints against small businesses and settles them for cash (Mar. 18, 2005; Nov. 4, 2006). According to the L.A. Times account, he “twice was suspended by the state bar for charging clients ‘unconscionable’ fees.” When a retired police sergeant sent him a letter expressing “glee” over his indictment, Yagman promptly sued him (Jan. 5, 2006). Norm Pattis (Nov. 29) reflects: “I wonder whether Yagman became a Leona Helmsley-type figure. The law is for little people, he appears to have thought.”
We’ve been covering the exploits of professional ADA plaintiff Jarek Molski and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich for a long time now (See Aug. 3, Mar. 23, many others). When last we checked, Molski/Frankovich were appealing a federal judge’s finding in Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp. that they were vexatious litigants; the designation meant that they couldn’t file any more ADA lawsuits in the Central District of California without first getting permission from the court.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion (PDF) which upheld the finding in its entirety. The only quirky part of the case was that it was likely that many of the establishments sued by Molski/Frankovich at least technically probably had violated the ADA by not complying with its vague, onerous requirements. But the Ninth Circuit had no problem getting beyond that:
Frivolous litigation is not limited to cases in which a legal claim is entirely without merit. It is also frivolous for a claimant who has some measure of a legitimate claim to make false factual assertions. Just as bringing a completely baseless claim is frivolous, so too a person with a measured legitimate claim may cross the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false.
And for some reason, neither the District Court nor the Ninth Circuit were impressed with Molski’s factual assertions:
However, it is very unlikely that Molski suffered the same injuries, often multiple times in one day, performing the same activities—transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet or negotiating accessibility obstacles. Common sense dictates that Molski would have figured out some way to avoid repetitive injury-causing activity; even a young child who touches a hot stove quickly learns to avoid pain by not repeating the conduct.
The Ninth Circuit was not any more complimentary towards Frankovich:
When a client stumbles so far off the trail, we naturally should wonder whether the attorney for the client gave inadequate or improper advice.
The court also found significant that Frankovich may well have broken legal ethics rules by trying to intimidate defendants into settling without hiring lawyers and giving them (bad) legal advice.
This isn’t necessarily the end for Molski/Frankovich. The vexatious litigant order applies only to the federal courts — in fact, only the federal courts in the Central District of California — and does not prevent them from filing suit; it only requires them to seek permission of the court first.
{ 3 comments }
Serial ADA litigant (and Overlawyered repeat offender) Thomas Frankovich was profiled recently in SF Weekly. Overlawyered readers will be familiar with just about everything in there, from Frankovich’s extortionate tactics to his collaboration with professional plaintiffs like Jarek Molski, to his use of front groups in an attempt to make his litigiousness seem like a public service. (Frankovich, incidentally, does not work in a wheelchair accessible office.)
Matthew Hirsch of LegalPad reports that Frankovich is attempting to rehabilitate his image before the Ninth Circuit rules on whether he, and his fellow traveler Molski, are vexatious litigants:
Starting this month, Frankovich and a major client are offering defendants a deal: “You make your [entrance] doorway accessible, and we will waive any and all claims — including money damages,” he said.
Yes, but Frankovich is a lawyer, so be sure to read the fine print:
Frankovich said his clients who are affiliated with DREES will offer the front door deal if they are visiting only to check out the entrance. But if they spot a door that wheelchair users can’t open, then they go inside to shop and notice more problems, “that becomes something different,” Frankovich said, and the deal is off.
{ 1 comment }
Reporter Jay Miller quotes me and mentions this site in an article on ADA mass-filing operators; the piece should be available on a registration basis for a few more days before becoming subscriber-only (Jay Miller, “Flood of lawsuits filed under Disabilities Act”, Financial Week, May 28). This site has been covering ADA filing mills for years and years; see Apr. 15, Mar. 27, and many other entries on our disabled-rights page.
Point of Law Volokh