Comments on: 60 Minutes on ADA Drive-By Lawsuits

By: Guillermo M

Guillermo M — Fri, 09 Dec 2016 20:29:26 +0000

In reply to Scott Nygard. I'm defending one and it probably will get that far. We'll see/

By: MattS

MattS — Thu, 08 Dec 2016 21:44:01 +0000

In reply to Jonathan Bailey. An AG with a backbone?

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Thu, 08 Dec 2016 20:21:38 +0000

We’ve got an ADA filing mill outfit in Arizona, but the AG’s office is taking a rather dim view of the practice.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_b572dce6-b594-11e6-aa07-937c2e25f0a1.html

Why aren’t other states fighting back? What’s different about AZ?

By: Scott Nygard

Scott Nygard — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:19:31 +0000

In reply to MattS. It won't matter. These parasite lawyers ask for $5-10k in most cases. They ask for amounts that small for a reason. They do it because the defendant would have to be crazy to actually defend against the case. Their lawyer will tell them that they will burn up $10,000 in just the first month (or less) of fighting this case, so it's best to just settle. These kinds of cases never even see a judge, a courtroom, or even a deposition.

By: wilbur

wilbur — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 19:48:19 +0000

I hope Bob Dole is proud.

By: MattS

MattS — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 17:45:22 +0000

In reply to Walter Olson. If all they have is six month old or older aerial photography available for free online, there isn't going to be a rest to proceed with.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:02:27 +0000

In reply to MattS. Good luck in most states, though, getting sanctions against an ADA claim on the grounds of insufficiently diligent investigation. More likely, the lawyer will be able to drop the filings found to be in error with no penalty and proceed with the rest.

By: MattS

MattS — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:51:14 +0000

“And now we’re beginning to see “Google lawsuits” in which the complainant consults online aerial maps to discover, for example, which motel owners haven’t yet ”

That will fall flat fast. Aerial photography available on line isn’t current. It’s a minimum of six months out of date.

By: Chris Hoey

Chris Hoey — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:09:29 +0000

Over twenty years ago, while I was a house counsel for the now defunct Woolworth stores chain, an activist disabled rights group filed a charge with the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission alleging all stores in the state were not in compliance with the accessibility standards. One of the first demands of the commission was for the locations and addresses of the alleged non compliant stores. It was a bit nonplussed when I told the commission the burden was on the charging party to identify the alleged locations with violations and to specify said violations. The commission insisted the company should provide the information so it could proceed to investigate, despite the patent absurdity of the request. Woolworth closed all stores in the USA in 1995 and ceased violations in the midst of the procedural stand off, so the issue was never resolved.
(I retired from Woolworth in 1994)
To me this situation epitomized the unintended pitfalls of an otherwise altruistic statute.