Indeed, maybe of the allegations assume facts not presented. Oh, like the claims of merely technical violations when things are an inch off. Well, that inch might matter. I mean for instance, this site says that the door must be at least 32 inches. http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#4.13

According to this site, the average width of a standard manual wheelchair can be easily 26.5 inches. http://www.thewheelchairsite.com/blogs/wheelchair_accessibility_issues/archive/2006/10/25/98255.aspx

That leaves 2.75 inches on each side for, you know, YOUR HANDS. I think given that math, one inch might really matter. Indeed, as corporate counsel to a company, I wouldn’t let my company get that close on compliance on anything. For instance, when you are supposed to do something every 30 days, we do it every 25 days, just to be sure. I would have us have enough of a berth so that we weren’t even close so that no one could allege even a technical violation.

And I would add that it has nothing to do with the issue primarily in the topic, which is whether or not a movie theater should be required to provide accommodations at issue to the deaf and blind.

But I love this. A man can go to Afghanistan, get shot in the spine in defense of our country, and come home and hear people whine that its such an imposition to make it so they can come in the door. “Thank you for serving your country and your reward for doing so is now to be a second class citizen in that country.” Lovely.

On a given day, a plaintiff’s ADA Title III lawyer files a dozen form complaints against a dozen separate businesses on behalf of the same professional plaintiff. The complaints allege hypertechnical “violations” such as signs that are a couple of inches too low, a toilet grab bar that is two inches too high, a turning space in the restroom that six inches too narrow, a ramp that has a slope that is 1 degree too steep to satisfy ADAAG, some of which do not even arguably apply to the plaintiff (e.g., lack of Braille signage when plaintiff is sighted but utilizes a wheelchair) and none of which actually prevent plaintiff from accessing the facility and some which. In many cases, the plaintiff alleges is not The real object of these suits is not to prod the defendants to resolve the alleged issues but to make them pay an inflated amount of fees to plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel counts on the fact that most of the defendants will pay him $10-12,000 in fees in order to avoid spending some multiple of that winning the case – and a prevailing defendant in an ADA Title III case is not going to recover fees – a classic shakedown. If the case is settled under such an agreement, the judge does not intervene. When there is a dispute as to fees, the local judges are treat plaintiff’s fee claims with the pointed scrutiny and skepticism they richly deserve. But even if plaintiff’s counsel takes a beating in one or two cases, he still makes money on the other ten cookie cutter actions he filed. That’s why they’re called “ADA mills.”

And the fact that attorneys can make money bringing a certain type of case says absolutely nothing about the merits of the cases they bring. To paraphrase Nathan Thurm, “Maybe you should do more Overlawyered reading. Maybe that would work for you.”

Plaintiffs who win ADA cases automatically get fees. Defendants have to prove, essentially beyond reasonable doubt, fraud, perjury, or the sort of lawyer who has his own tag at this site, in order to recover fees.

The unwillingness of judges to apply Rule 11 is a scandal in and of itself, but that’s a book, not a blog comment. I’m afraid I agree with anti, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and I don’t have time to educate you.

I googled around. i see morse being apparently sanctioned with attorneys fees, which is interesting because apparently no one knew that the ADA allows for attorneys fees to be awarded without sanctionable conduct. So apparently alot of these guys don’t know how to defend themselves.

And he was sanctioned for believing his client and not checking it out for himself. mmm, i agree with the ruling, but it hardly proves him a sleezebag.

As for Singleton, i don’t see anything establishing that he has done anything. he has accusors and he denies their specific allegations. now maybe they are buried, given that you get alot of false hits in google.

Insurance companies don’t cover ADA claims. One suit (and they’re legion) over a de minimis violation can force a small business into bankruptcy.

Lol, so the judges shoot them down all the time, but they keep going and going. that makes zero sense.

greedy people are, well, greedy, and so they aren’t going to lean into something unless they have a reasonable chance of getting money out of it. Indeed a predatory plaintiff’s lawyer cannot even realistically threaten to increase your legal costs, given that both sides can recover attorneys fees.

It’s not that you “disagree” about this issue, Worthing; it’s that you don’t know the first thing about it.

disagree totally. outside of prisoners, the “abusive ADA litigant” is largely a myth, if only because sleezy lawyers have much better ways to make money.