4 ms·

What is being labeled as predatory was the scheme being led that had the lawyers husband fake a disability in order to launch these lawsuits (200 in one year, o

What is being labeled as predatory was the scheme being led that had the lawyers husband fake a disability in order to launch these lawsuits (200 in one year, over 2000 total). And that it was specifically targeted at small businesses of a size/condition that they would really be susceptible to the lawsuits. There was also some light witness tampering and evidence destruction as a part of the RICO case against this attorney, so yeah, I think in this one case, there really was some wild stuff going on.

Pfhreak 7y ago
In this case the specific lawsuit against this coffeeshop was labeled predatory which was filed by "a disabled San Jose man", which seems to be someone other than the attorney's ex husband Ronald.
- wang_li 7y ago
  They're apparently asking for something on the order of $60,000 for not being able to go into a cafe and get a cup of coffee. That seems quite far beyond the damages incurred. sounds predatory to me.
  - astura 7y ago
    That is statutory damages, not compensatory damages. Statutory damages are written into the statue, not a payment for damages actually incurred. The ADA is mostly enforced by private plaintiffs, that's the way the law was written. Nationally the ADA doesn't allow for private plaintiffs to profit from ADA lawsuits, however, a few states (like California) have statutes that do. Of course, a big problem is the businesses don't have a mandatory warning with a grace period to become compliant, it's just now you have a lawsuit. This can create "professional plaintiffs." Then again, the ADA is a civil rights law, and other civil rights laws aren't like that, you don't get "one free racial discrimination," and I don't think that many people would want that.
    - wang_li 7y ago
      I think the California statutory damages are $4,000. The article gives the impression it's a $60,000 settlement being offered: >The other option to opt for a settlement was not in the cards either, added Tran, who said she could not afford paying a massive $60,000 payout.
      - astura 7y ago
        Looks like $4,000 is the minimum and it's per offense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act >Combined with the California Disabled Persons Acts, disability access plaintiffs are allowed to tack on state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits. The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees.
    - lokedhs 7y ago
      Why does the plaintiff receive the statutory damages? This is similar to a fine in that they are support to force the violator into complying, not to give a payout much larger than the financial loss of the victim. The obvious solution here is that the government takes a portion of this money to remove the gambling-like incentives.
diffeomorphism 7y ago
Devil's advocate: If the lawyer did this pro bono or with only small profits, he would be celebrated as championing accessibility rights. Doing good for bad reasons.

Pfhreak 7y ago

In this case the specific lawsuit against this coffeeshop was labeled predatory which was filed by "a disabled San Jose man", which seems to be someone other than the attorney's ex husband Ronald.

wang_li 7y ago
They're apparently asking for something on the order of $60,000 for not being able to go into a cafe and get a cup of coffee. That seems quite far beyond the damages incurred. sounds predatory to me.
- astura 7y ago
  That is statutory damages, not compensatory damages. Statutory damages are written into the statue, not a payment for damages actually incurred. The ADA is mostly enforced by private plaintiffs, that's the way the law was written. Nationally the ADA doesn't allow for private plaintiffs to profit from ADA lawsuits, however, a few states (like California) have statutes that do. Of course, a big problem is the businesses don't have a mandatory warning with a grace period to become compliant, it's just now you have a lawsuit. This can create "professional plaintiffs." Then again, the ADA is a civil rights law, and other civil rights laws aren't like that, you don't get "one free racial discrimination," and I don't think that many people would want that.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    I think the California statutory damages are $4,000. The article gives the impression it's a $60,000 settlement being offered: >The other option to opt for a settlement was not in the cards either, added Tran, who said she could not afford paying a massive $60,000 payout.
    - astura 7y ago
      Looks like $4,000 is the minimum and it's per offense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act >Combined with the California Disabled Persons Acts, disability access plaintiffs are allowed to tack on state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits. The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees.
  - lokedhs 7y ago
    Why does the plaintiff receive the statutory damages? This is similar to a fine in that they are support to force the violator into complying, not to give a payout much larger than the financial loss of the victim. The obvious solution here is that the government takes a portion of this money to remove the gambling-like incentives.

diffeomorphism 7y ago

Devil's advocate: If the lawyer did this pro bono or with only small profits, he would be celebrated as championing accessibility rights. Doing good for bad reasons.