In California last month (see Dec. 12) federal judge Edward Rafeedie ruled that perennial ADA plaintiff Jarek Molski is a “vexatious litigant” who runs a “scheme of systematic extortion” by filing mass disabled-rights complaints; Rafeedie also sharply criticized Molski’s lawyer, Thomas Frankovich. But that doesn’t seem to have cramped the duo’s style much: Frankovich says he intends, on behalf of Molski, to “refile a lawsuit against Peachy Canyon Winery within two weeks in state Superior Court, asking for money because the tasting room didn’t comply with the ADA when he visited in 2003. ‘We’ve got to get compensated for the work we did to fix it,’ Frankovich said. ‘We went out and had an expert inspect it, told them what was wrong and tried to get a settlement.'” The winery’s lawyer says it is now in compliance with ADA standards, but Frankovich says that wasn’t the case in 2003. (Ryan Huff, “Winery will face ADA suit again”, San Luis Obispo Tribune, Jan. 5). (& letter to the editor, Mar. 15 (another frequent Calif. ADA filer)).
Posts Tagged ‘ADA filing mills’
Update: judge restrains frequent ADA filer
In California, U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie has issued an order labeling Jarek Molski of Woodland Hills a “vexatious litigant” because of patterns of abuse in his filing of hundreds of disabled-rights lawsuits against restaurants, bowling alleys, wineries and other businesses in the state (Sept. 21, Nov. 27, etc.). If upheld, the ruling would bar Molski from filing further suits without permission of a judge, who would have to be informed of Rafeedie’s order. “In three separate suits filed last year, for example, Molski, a law school graduate, claimed to have suffered identical injuries at three restaurants, all on May 20, 2003 — ‘highly unusual, to say the least,'” the judge wrote. The use of vexatious-litigant orders is considered rare; among legal professionals interviewed by the L.A. Times, Eve L. Hill, a visiting professor of law at Loyola-Los Angeles and executive director of the Western Law Center for Disability Rights, called Judge Rafeedie’s order “outrageous”, while Stanford law prof Pamela Karlan said it made “perfect sense” in that allowing misuse of the disabilities act risks generating a public backlash against it. (Henry Weinstein, “Disabled Man’s Suits Restricted”, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 11; “Lawsuit spree angers judge”, AP/Monterey County Herald, Dec. 12)(via Kemplog).
Judge Rafeedie also had harsh words for Molski’s attorney, Thomas E. Frankovich of San Francisco, saying he and his law firm had “aided and abetted” Molski’s “abusive litigation practices,” and “issuing an order that Frankovich’s firm and an organization affiliated with Molski called Disability Rights Enforcement Education Services had to come to court and show why they also should not be sanctioned.” Recently Frankovich filed five more lawsuits against businesses in the Central Coast town of Cambria, but this time the plaintiff is Nicole Moss rather than Molski. (Cynthia Neff, “New ADA lawsuits target Cambria”, San Luis Obispo Tribune, Nov. 11).
More from the Santa Maria Times:
A provision of California state law known as the Unruh Act allows Molski to demand $4,000 in damages per violation, per day.
Molski has said in the past that an average settlement is $20,000. He testified in the Los Angeles trial that he personally nets an average of $4,000 per settlement, after paying attorney’s fees, [Bakersfield attorney Craig] Beardsley said.
“There appeared to be 200 active cases ongoing at a time. You could extrapolate that out to $800,000 a year,” Beardsley said.
(Erin Carlyle, “Restaurant ready to fight lawsuit”, Santa Maria Times, Dec. 5).
ADA filing mills defended
And now, by way of giving our opposite numbers their say: the disabled-rights magazine Ragged Edge is out with a pair of articles defending the accessibility filing mills that roam the land grinding out lawsuits against restaurants and other small businesses, with demands for legal fees an important part of the negotiations (see Jul. 9, Mar. 9, Jan. 14 and links from there). The main article gives us a mention (Mary Johnson, “The Lawsuit Dilemma”, Nov.). A shorter companion piece includes the following interesting comments:
With a lawsuit, the disabled person has [a] lawyer (and the lawyer will, in the end, be paid by the defendant). With a lawsuit, their attorney can hire an ADA consultant, who will also be paid by the defendant. The costs of preparing for negotiating, the costs of drafting settlement agreements, the costs of mediation (including paying the mediator) can all be paid by the defendant. With a lawsuit, there is money to pay for these things. Without a lawsuit, there is no money. …
By suing. we are in the driver’s seat. …
Nonprofit groups handling ADA compliance efforts can be funded through lawsuits. One of the more active disability rights plaintiff organizations in this country has been able [to] do its work because it receives donations from the lawyers who earn fees representing the organization’s members in ADA lawsuits.
(Fred Shotz, “Why Suing is Important”, Nov.)
ADA suits close another beloved eatery
Once again it’s happening in central California: “After more than 40 years in business, Roy’s Drive-In in Salinas is closing — in part because the owner can’t afford a lawsuit that accuses him of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Jarek Molski of Woodland Hills in southern California, who uses a wheelchair, “is suing Patterson because he claims the restaurant is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Molski has sued over 200 small businesses for not meeting ADA requirements. …Built in the 1950s, Roy’s Drive-In does not have ramps to access the windows and restrooms, but employees say the business is accessible to all of their customers — including the disabled,” through car-hop service. The restaurant is scheduled to close today. (“Roy’s Drive-In Closing After 40 Years”, TheKSBWChannel.com, Sept. 20; Claudia Melendez, “Roy’s Drive-In to close”, Salinas Californian, Sept. 18). Last year (see Sept. 2, 2003) On Lock Sam, a beloved 105-year-old Chinese restaurant in Stockton, closed after being hit with an access suit.
Complainant Molski has been known to call himself “Sheriff”, and his activities (assisted by lawyer Thomas Frankovich) have caused an uproar lately in central California. His suits repeatedly recycle identical allegations concerning the lack of accessibility of establishments he says he has visited, and demand money over such putative misdeeds such as placing paper towel holders at an incorrect height. Hundreds of residents “filled the Morro Bay council chambers” after Molski hit a dozen local restaurants with suits. (Andrew Masuda, “Residents speak out over ADA lawsuits”, KSBY, Sept. 14). “Customers are calling Molski’s tactics a get-rich-quick scheme,” reported KSBY. Molski is “asking for $4,000 a day until the remodeling is completed,” says Ruth Florence, who owns Ahedo’s Mexican Restaurant in Grover Beach. “That’s ridiculous.” (Carina Corral, “China Bowl owner speaks out”, Sept. 15). More coverage on the same station: Sept. 8, Sept. 9, Sept. 10, Sept. 14.
Nor is Roy’s Drive-In the only casualty: “Owners of The Hungry Fisherman restaurant on Beach Street in Morro Bay say that Molski’s lawsuit caused the establishment to close after 28 years.” (Lindsay Christians, “Disability suits worry Morro Bay”, San Luis Obispo Tribune, Sept. 14). More coverage in the same paper: Sept. 11, Sept. 15, Sept. 15 again, Sept. 16, Sept. 18. San Diego-based lawyer Amy Vandeveld has also represented Molski (Matt Krasnowski, “Flood of ADA lawsuits irks small businesses”, Copley/San Diego Union-Tribune, Sept. 12). For Morse Mehrban’s recent activities in Fresno, see Jul. 9. For much more about disabled-rights filing mills, see Mar. 9 and links from there, and my City Journal article, “The ADA Shakedown Racket“. Update Dec. 12: judge declares Molski vexatious litigant.
Morse Mehrban hits Fresno
The self-described “bounty hunter” lawyer, whose exploits around L.A. have been previously detailed in this space Nov. 4-5, 2002 and Mar. 12 of this year, has turned his talents to disabled-rights enforcement and swooped down on the city of Fresno, filing more than 130 lawsuits against local businesses over such alleged infractions as a too-high bathroom mirror and a hard-to-reach soda dispenser. Businesses usually pay between $5,000 and $12,000 to settle, says San Diego defense attorney James Reynolds. (Robert Rodriguez, “Fresno Businesses Are Sued Over Act”, Fresno Bee, Jul. 4) (via Southern California Law Blog). For more on ADA filing mills, see Mar. 9 and links from there and my City Journal article, “The ADA Shakedown Racket“.
Chicago’s ADA filing mill
After South Florida, California and Philadelphia, Chicago’s time was bound to come: a lawyer/complainant team has tagged some 175 businesses, mostly in the Lincoln Park area, with charges of lack of disabled accessibility. Previously, complaints in the city had been running at about 30 annually. “They’re settling for cash,” said David Hanson, commissioner of the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities: $100 for Stuart L. Smith and $485 for Alan J. Morgan, his lawyer, plus minor upgrades to store entrances and the like. Steve Starr, owner of a jewelry and antique shop, says he has spent thousands in legal fees fighting one of the complaints. (John Schmeltzer, “Disability lawsuits rile North Side businesses”, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 7).
ADA filing mills: coming to your town next?
I’ve just published, in the new City Journal, an article on the thriving industry of filing disabled-accessibility complaints against unsuspecting businesses and building owners which are then traded in for hard cash, often couched as legal fees, payable to the organizers of the complaints. Established disabled-rights groups mostly say they’re dismayed by the practice, which doesn’t mean they necessarily support any steps that would stop it. (Walter K. Olson, “The ADA Shakedown Racket”, City Journal, Winter). For earlier coverage of the issue on this site, see Aug. 12, this group of links, and our disabled-rights page generally.
Latest ADA filing mill
It’s in Philadelphia, and the Inquirer does a good job of exposing its workings (L. Stuart Ditzen, “Business owners call flood of disability suits an ambush”, Aug. 31) (see Aug. 12 (Calif.) and earlier coverage).