If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 40 Sacramento)   Ford's Real Hamburgers, 50 year-old landmark, shut down by ADA and activist attorney because he couldn't give a crap   (fox40.com) divider line 427
    More: Sad, ADA, attorney-in-fact, activists  
•       •       •

19950 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2012 at 1:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



427 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-30 03:31:59 PM

firefly212: 1. Even as someone occasionally on crutches, I understand that old buildings aren't necessarily going to be fully compliant.

2. Reasonable accommodation should just mean that owners take all reasonable measures to help the disabled... in the case of this burger joint, it would mean that if they were going to remodel the bathroom, then they should make it compliant... I've worked in older buildings before where we've had to help people in wheelchairs get over a hump in the doorway, or come around from behind the counter because it was too high. In bigger retail establishments, sometimes we end up having to move fixtures on wheels so people in wheelchairs have comfortable space to navigate away from aisles.

3. This whole issue speaks more to the litigious nature of some jackasses than to the validity of the ADA.

4. In the interest of full disclosure, I've filed an ADA compliance complaint against a former employer... I worked at a sporting goods store, everyone in every department had stools to sit on, tucked away in various places. They took my stool away and nobody elses (I have MS), then explained to me that it was different for me because (exact quote) "you might actually need it, and we can't have that kind of image for our customers" by more than one manager.

In short, the litigants are dicks in this case, but the ADA is a valuable law in fighting the kind of discrimination that most reasonable people would have thought ended decades ago. Some changes might be needed to enhance the grandfathering clauses so small businesses don't go out of business, but even those changes will not make a difference unless we can get meaningful tort reform wherein litigants who file claims capriciously (as determined by the court) can be held responsible for defendant's costs.



This, in spades.

If people truly are being disadvantaged, then that's what the ADA is for. It is NOT for strike suits, extortion and frivolous lawsuits because Counselor Asshat wants to make another $5000 this week. It's for people who say "No, you can't sit down on the job because what would the customers think?" or businesses who say "Yeah, we COULD remodel our bathrooms, we just don't feel like it." It does NOT exist so that even when a business is compliant a douchebag can say "Meh, I'm going to sue you anyway cuz I need the money, but if you pay me now, I won't sue."
 
2012-09-30 03:32:30 PM

Theaetetus: I disagree - if I park in a parking spot and don't see any paint on it, then why should my car be towed or I get a ticket? How was I to know it was a handicapped spot? Magic? Worse yet, what am I supposed to do? Show up and paint lines? It's not even my parking lot. So, now I'm responsible for a parking ticket and I couldn't even do anything to avoid it? That's not fair.


You are certainly entitled to a hearing. Your not required to pay the ticket until a Court says you do - sure you can pay it but you are not required to do so. Bring pictures of the spot and show them that it was not properly marked. They will have to dismiss the ticket. That is fair, in fact it is the foundation of our justice system.

I would think that the police would when called out the place with the faint lines go inside and tell the owner, "Hey your handicapped parking spots are being used by non-handicapped patrons because they aren't easily identifiable." The owner would then repaint them post haste so as to be a good guy and not upset any of his handicapped patrons or non-handicapped patrons who might have to fight a ticket.

Or you could drive by and then send a letter threatening a lawsuit to a place you never intend to patronize anyway.
 
2012-09-30 03:33:19 PM

puffy999: Seriously, I'd print up flyers with this guy's picture that says "do not allow this man in your establishment" and give them to small businesses. Paste it on the front window.


Just don't allow members of the California Bar at all.

It would class up a lot of places I'm sure.

/not a member of the California Bar
 
2012-09-30 03:33:58 PM
staging.sacandco.net

'It's a living.'
 
2012-09-30 03:34:48 PM

kyrg: The ADA has become a farce for example, the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room."


That's not in the ADA... In fact, the Martinez court said that the ADA doesn't apply to breast pumping.
 
2012-09-30 03:34:50 PM

Bendal: She sued the City for ADA negligence. The courts agreed, and ordered Sacramento to spend ONE THIRD of their annual highway budget on making their streets ADA compliant, for as long as it took. Had the town told her "yes, we're aware of the need at that intersection, and it's on our list for improvements", she could have sued until the cows came home and nothing would have happened. But, just saying "no, go away" is NOT an option with dealing with ADA.


Next, you'll have cities required to place some sort of noise maker in the roadway to identify, by weight, potentially hazardous objects. You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.

... I hope nobody runs with that idea.

/your firm should hire me for contract work, because I could make you a lot of money in the entire southwest region of Oregon
//a local striping plan, a multi-million dollar project, looks like it was designed with a crayon and had to be partially re-done at least once
 
2012-09-30 03:34:53 PM

bunner: WE ARE HOLIER THAN THOU AND WE ALONE LOOK OUT FOR THE CRIPPLED AND THE ORPHANS AND THE DOWNTRODDEN SO YOU JUST STOP MAKING A LIVING WITH YOUR FASCIST HAMBURGERS AND YOU SIGN THIS CHECK!

America has become a nation of whiners, thieves, entitled douchebags and slimy bastards in suits who have make believe jobs, skimming as living off of catering to them.

Food truck? Old burger joint? Public urban park? NO BATHROOM! SHUT IT DOWN! For Justice!

We've run out of ideas and one of the few ways we have left to move money around is to write laws that allow people to take yours away. That's not even reprehensible. That's Soviet.


America has always been a land off whiners ("Nooo! You cannot tax us without representation!"). The main difference now is that we use lawyers and not guns when we whine.
 
2012-09-30 03:35:23 PM

kyrg: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.

You fail to grasp the fact that life is unfair and no amount of laws will make it fair. The ADA has become a farce for example, the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room." Of 100 occupants in the building, 4 are female, two of which are lesbian, all are 35 years old or older, but by God the ADA says the building needs one so one will be built.
Couldn't the Ford thing have been solved with a rented Handicapped porta potty anyway?


See the thing is, that's not what the ADA says at all. The ADA says that your building must make available, if requested, a private room that is not a bathroom, in which women can breast feed. At my old work, it was my boss's office (no interior windows, blinds on the outside, so it was private), and she'd go work at another workstation whenever needed.

And yes, a port a potty can meet ADA regulations, at my current work in some of the places that were not able to be renovated, they have wheelchair accessible port-a-potties.
 
2012-09-30 03:36:19 PM

kyrg: the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room."


That has nothing to do with ADA regs...
 
2012-09-30 03:37:42 PM

puffy999: You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.


The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

See also: Scientific American
 
2012-09-30 03:38:25 PM

firefly212: 4. In the interest of full disclosure, I've filed an ADA compliance complaint against a former employer... I worked at a sporting goods store, everyone in every department had stools to sit on, tucked away in various places. They took my stool away and nobody elses (I have MS), then explained to me that it was different for me because (exact quote) "you might actually need it, and we can't have that kind of image for our customers" by more than one manager.


Wow. THAT guy.... man, that guy.

To be fair, he was speaking from experience. He was probably disallowed from rolling a wheelbarrow around the store, what for the giant f*cking balls that he must be carrying.
 
2012-09-30 03:38:45 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: Seriously, how difficult would it be to rub out a freaking cripple?

If they want to have all the same access and rights as everybody else, it seems to me that getting whacked for being an asshole is part of the deal, no?


Apparently, in Houston all you need is the police. Cripples aren't given any leeway when it comes to getting shot.
 
2012-09-30 03:38:56 PM

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: I disagree - if I park in a parking spot and don't see any paint on it, then why should my car be towed or I get a ticket? How was I to know it was a handicapped spot? Magic? Worse yet, what am I supposed to do? Show up and paint lines? It's not even my parking lot. So, now I'm responsible for a parking ticket and I couldn't even do anything to avoid it? That's not fair.

You are certainly entitled to a hearing. Your not required to pay the ticket until a Court says you do - sure you can pay it but you are not required to do so. Bring pictures of the spot and show them that it was not properly marked. They will have to dismiss the ticket. That is fair, in fact it is the foundation of our justice system.


Really? Because you said my car should be towed. So now I have to pay to get my car out, attend a hearing, and attempt to get the city to pay be back for the towing charge?

I would think that the police would when called out the place with the faint lines go inside and tell the owner, "Hey your handicapped parking spots are being used by non-handicapped patrons because they aren't easily identifiable." The owner would then repaint them post haste so as to be a good guy and not upset any of his handicapped patrons or non-handicapped patrons who might have to fight a ticket.

The owner got a letter saying "Hey your handicapped parking spots are being used by non-handicapped patrons because they aren't easily identifiable" and did nothing about it for a year. So, while he might do it in your scenario, it's not to be a good guy, but because he's afraid of the cops.

Or you could drive by and then send a letter threatening a lawsuit to a place you never intend to patronize anyway.

And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"
 
2012-09-30 03:39:12 PM

feckingmorons: Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.


The guy had over 20 years to find a way to comply, and actually California has had accessibility regs even longer. At some point it does fall on business owners. Especially when many had no problem with compliance, like 20 years ago.
 
2012-09-30 03:40:33 PM

feckingmorons: puffy999: You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.

The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

See also: Scientific American


yes, because speakers that make a sound loud enough for the blind to hear them coming are an unbelievable cost, I saw them at target selling for upwards of two whole dollars!

You're buying a car that gets thousands of dollars in special tax rebates, and biatching that the government setting certain requirements for it is far too onerous on you.
 
2012-09-30 03:41:17 PM

RoyBatty: bhcompy: Bendal: Curb ramps, for example, have gone from a simple inset within a sidewalk to a complicated design that is often unique to the specific intersection, and on large projects could have several pages of curb ramp details for all the various situations. The instructor told us if a town has a plan for upgrading the intersections to the new curb ramp details, that's just fine. But, if the town hasn't been spending any money on ramp upgrades for years, and have lots of the old noncompliant ramps out on the streets? That's a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Heh. Every intersection has been torn up to have their curb ramps replaced with the new ones that have the yellow bumpy pad on them. I understand the need, but it's not like we were hearing stories of blind pedestrians stepping out in to traffic because they didn't feel the bumps. Hell, those bumps probably hinder moving a wheelchair through it, I know it does shopping carts(they have them at every grocery store here in front of the store when there is no curb between the parking lot and the store entrance)

That's interesting -- I thought the bumps were to stop wheelchairs and shopping carts, not to alert the blind.

Thank you!


Ha Ha.
This is Minnesota.
The climate and snowplows fix the bumps!
Speed bumps are rare indeed.
We put tank traps in front of our stores.
 
2012-09-30 03:43:10 PM

Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.


ADA is a nazi bit of legislation that even judges can't agree on.
 
2012-09-30 03:43:58 PM

firefly212: feckingmorons: puffy999: You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.

The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

See also: Scientific American

yes, because speakers that make a sound loud enough for the blind to hear them coming are an unbelievable cost, I saw them at target selling for upwards of two whole dollars!

You're buying a car that gets thousands of dollars in special tax rebates, and biatching that the government setting certain requirements for it is far too onerous on you.


Wouldn't it be better if all cars hummed a happy tune all the time so you wouldn't walk into the parked ones either?
 
2012-09-30 03:44:00 PM

Securitywyrm: I was injured in Iraq and need a cane to walk, and stairs hurt. That said, I think the lack of a grandfather clause for the ADA was stupid and just fed the lawyers. It quickly became about 'punishing businesses' rather than 'fixing the problem.' If an old building only has stairs, I think it's damn arrogant of me to say they should have to put in an elevator that will cost more than the business makes in a year just so that I can go to the upstairs patio.


The place I work now (Winter Park) is home to the National Sports Center for the Disabled ... hit me up if you wanna go play in the snow or out in the mountains in the spring/summer (details in profile). We also do a bunch of work through the Wounded Warriors project if you're already hooked up with them.
 
2012-09-30 03:45:08 PM

snocone: firefly212: feckingmorons: puffy999: You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.

The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

See also: Scientific American

yes, because speakers that make a sound loud enough for the blind to hear them coming are an unbelievable cost, I saw them at target selling for upwards of two whole dollars!

You're buying a car that gets thousands of dollars in special tax rebates, and biatching that the government setting certain requirements for it is far too onerous on you.

Wouldn't it be better if all cars hummed a happy tune all the time so you wouldn't walk into the parked ones either?


blind people don't get hit by a lot of parked cars, though I'm tempted to look on youtube for contrary examples.
 
2012-09-30 03:45:42 PM

firefly212: And yes, a port a potty can meet ADA regulations, at my current work in some of the places that were not able to be renovated, they have wheelchair accessible port-a-potties.


That actually explains a question I had a few years ago. LOL
 
2012-09-30 03:45:50 PM

firefly212: See the thing is, that's not what the ADA says at all. The ADA says that your building must make available, if requested, a private room that is not a bathroom, in which women can breast feed. At my old work, it was my boss's office (no interior windows, blinds on the outside, so it was private), and she'd go work at another workstation whenever needed.


I don't think lactation is a disability, see Martinez v. NBC 49 F.Supp.2d 305.


/I don't actually keep up on breastfeeding laws.
 
2012-09-30 03:46:30 PM

bubo_sibiricus: feckingmorons: many of Johnson's victim businesses end up paying thousands of dollars in expensive remodeling to bathrooms; for entrance and exit doors; and for re-paving and painting parking lots, changing signage, or even having to install expensive wheelchair ramps.

Boo. Hoo.


well done you. nice lazy Sunday afternoon work, 7.89/10. great followup, solid bites.
 
2012-09-30 03:47:45 PM
Story on this guy from a couple years ago.
Disabled attorney defends his 1,000+ ADA lawsuits
 
2012-09-30 03:48:20 PM

feckingmorons: The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.


I know.

BUT, what about horse-drawn carriages (assuming the horses wore sneakers)? Bicycles (I've seen people get hit by a cyclist running a stop sign, and injuries ensued)? What if we start riding around on the streets like we're on those birds in Joust? THINK OF THE BLIND PEOPLE.
 
2012-09-30 03:48:46 PM
Hmm, I was inconvenienced in an old building... I think I'll destroy their business and put a bunch of people out of work!
 
2012-09-30 03:48:53 PM

Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"


No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.
 
2012-09-30 03:49:13 PM

WhyteRaven74: kyrg: the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room."

That has nothing to do with ADA regs...


Actually there have been several attempts to shoehorn pregnancy into the federal ADA laws expressly for this. It would allow protection of pregnancy and force businesses to build "pregnancy friendly" facilities..
 
2012-09-30 03:50:24 PM
If he is quadriplegic, am I wrong in thinking that he goes in diapers anyway?
 
2012-09-30 03:50:27 PM

bhcompy: Bendal: Curb ramps, for example, have gone from a simple inset within a sidewalk to a complicated design that is often unique to the specific intersection, and on large projects could have several pages of curb ramp details for all the various situations. The instructor told us if a town has a plan for upgrading the intersections to the new curb ramp details, that's just fine. But, if the town hasn't been spending any money on ramp upgrades for years, and have lots of the old noncompliant ramps out on the streets? That's a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Heh. Every intersection has been torn up to have their curb ramps replaced with the new ones that have the yellow bumpy pad on them. I understand the need, but it's not like we were hearing stories of blind pedestrians stepping out in to traffic because they didn't feel the bumps. Hell, those bumps probably hinder moving a wheelchair through it, I know it does shopping carts(they have them at every grocery store here in front of the store when there is no curb between the parking lot and the store entrance)


1) First off, the "yellow bumpy pad" isn't the latest ADA requirement. Curb ramps are now required to have a level 4' square pad at the top of the ramp for wheelchairs to safely turn before using the ramp.

2) Would you prefer to wait before the intersections are upgraded until after a disabled pedestrian was hit by a car?

3) The bumps don't inhibit a wheelchair. I've sat in one and negotiated across the bumps myself. If I can do it, and never sat in a wheelchair before, then someone who uses one every day should be able to do it as well.

As I've said earlier, all a town/business has to demonstrate is they are aware of the ADA deficient areas and are working to fix them. It's the "well we knew we weren't in compliance but ignored them anyway" attitude that gets a business/town in hot water.
 
2012-09-30 03:50:39 PM

puffy999: feckingmorons: The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

I know.

BUT, what about horse-drawn carriages (assuming the horses wore sneakers)? Bicycles (I've seen people get hit by a cyclist running a stop sign, and injuries ensued)? What if we start riding around on the streets like we're on those birds in Joust? THINK OF THE BLIND PEOPLE.


I was once accidentally struck by a mime.
 
2012-09-30 03:51:24 PM

firefly212: You're buying a car that gets thousands of dollars in special tax rebates, and biatching that the government setting certain requirements for it is far too onerous on you.


I don't think anybody was saying that.

/well, maybe GAT...
 
2012-09-30 03:51:42 PM

WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.

The guy had over 20 years to find a way to comply, and actually California has had accessibility regs even longer. At some point it does fall on business owners. Especially when many had no problem with compliance, like 20 years ago.


Twenty years ago, not all businesses were under threat like they are now. Some businesses by their nature are not heavily patronized by disabled individuals, hence, being "out of compliance" is not a real issue to the owners: Why remodel a building for wheelchairs when wheelchair users don't use the business?

Example from my own experience: We had a gym in Nevada right around the time ADA went into effect. We had exclusively Nautilus equipment, which are not usable by paraplegics. Nevertheless, we had to redo the front of the building so that any wheelchair-bound individuals could come in--and do what? They couldn't use the equipment. So my boss spent extra money to create accessibility for people who would never spend their money at our gym. And there was no method for waiver: It was structurally and economically feasible, so it was done. And when a wheelchair user did drop by, he realized in about two seconds he could not use the equipment, and so we had to let him out the fully accessible exit.

Now, most businesses are not in that extreme position, but until very recently, (like within the last 20 years) there were not large numbers of individuals clamoring for accessbility in all places. And most disabilities can be accommodated without costly fixes--a blind person, for instance, does not need a special entrance or a larger bathroom to use a facility. Basically, the ADA has become used solely to require wheelchair access without consideration for how many users will be using the building, or even if they will be. A good reason why the type of strike-suit solution under discussion here is usually only for the profit of the attorney: If a disabled person is going to regularly patronize the business, wouldn't they prefer that the owner voluntarily come into compliance instead of heading straight to court?
 
2012-09-30 03:54:14 PM

feckingmorons: I was once accidentally struck by a mime.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-30 03:54:34 PM

puffy999: Do you have Asperger's or something? I'm just curious.


I have never been diagnosed with any kind of dysfunction, but no I don't think I meet any standards for Aspergers. I looked up the date before I typed that. I have what must be a mild form of ADHD but that's it.

06Wahoo: /Going to end up on GAT_00's ignore list too.
//But then, he would only be further proving my point.


He ended up on my ignore list because I've fought with him for years and I got tired of fighting with someone who had no intention of listening to any facts but the ones they wanted to listen to. Yes I know you're going to immediately claim that's what I do.
 
2012-09-30 03:55:09 PM

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.


Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.
 
2012-09-30 03:56:54 PM

Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.


Yeah, it is very simple. But it can also be extremely expensive, even prohibitively expensive.
 
2012-09-30 03:58:07 PM
Just sayin' that if the ADA had just built on the improvements for ole' Ford, it WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT CHEAPER!

but, NOOO
 
2012-09-30 03:59:13 PM

GAT_00: puffy999: Do you have Asperger's or something? I'm just curious.

I have never been diagnosed with any kind of dysfunction, but no I don't think I meet any standards for Aspergers. I looked up the date before I typed that. I have what must be a mild form of ADHD but that's it.

06Wahoo: /Going to end up on GAT_00's ignore list too.
//But then, he would only be further proving my point.

He ended up on my ignore list because I've fought with him for years and I got tired of fighting with someone who had no intention of listening to any facts but the ones they wanted to listen to. Yes I know you're going to immediately claim that's what I do.


The GAT_00 ignore list happy hour had to be moved this week. The bar was too small, We have rented Dodger Stadium to accommodate those on the list.

Remember, bring all the facts you want to happy hour, they are all welcome. We don't close our minds to dissenting opinion and call our own opinions fact.

/of course it is ADA compliant
 
2012-09-30 04:00:42 PM

feckingmorons: We have rented Dodger Stadium to accommodate those on the list.


Gross. I'd rather just go sit in that port-a-pot that was discussed earlier.
 
2012-09-30 04:01:17 PM

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.


Of course he can sue. He claims that by being out of compliance you've damaged him. Those damages don't go away simply because you've come into compliance.

If the same restaurant served bad fish and someone got sick and sued, they wouldn't toss the suit because the restaurant tossed the fish.

The compliance is not what he is suing about, the damage to himself is why he is suing.
 
2012-09-30 04:03:40 PM

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

Of course he can sue. He claims that by being out of compliance you've damaged him. Those damages don't go away simply because you've come into compliance.


It's no longer an ADA claim. If the business didn't have notice, and once they had notice, they immediately fixed the issue, then the ADA wouldn't apply. Instead, he'd have to be claiming that their violation was so egregious that they couldn't possibly have thought they were legal - like, the hall to the bathroom was lined with spinning blades.
 
2012-09-30 04:03:46 PM
Remember that Bobcat Goldthwait's Film Satire 'God Bless America'? Where the guy was killing people doing stupid things?

Just saying.
 
2012-09-30 04:05:40 PM

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.


What state do you live in? Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim. The issue is not whether the problem has been corrected, it is whether the problem existed at the time of the suit.

So if your hypothetical extortionist/lawyer took a picture of the faded lines, then it doesn't matter if the owner painted them the next week. At the time of filing, the problem existed, therefore, there IS a triable issue of fact. The issue is whether or not the extortionist/lawyer was harmed by the lack of compliance on the day in question, not whether things got fixed since then.

By your logic, it would be possible for anyone to avoid a suit by fixing the problem that started it: Oh, yes, our airplanes were deficient at the time of the crash, but we've repaired all the remaining planes in the interim, so your suit has no merit.
 
2012-09-30 04:06:22 PM

feckingmorons: The compliance is not what he is suing about, the damage to himself is why he is suing.


The sad thing is that, in America, inconvenience = damage.

And damage = $$.

And $$ = free speech.

So, by inconveniencing this man, clearly this business was just using their right to free speech. Ergo, their rights are being violated!

/okay, I'm PERFECTLY FINE with a lawyer taking this idea and running with it
 
2012-09-30 04:09:34 PM

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

Of course he can sue. He claims that by being out of compliance you've damaged him. Those damages don't go away simply because you've come into compliance.

It's no longer an ADA claim. If the business didn't have notice, and once they had notice, they immediately fixed the issue, then the ADA wouldn't apply. Instead, he'd have to be claiming that their violation was so egregious that they couldn't possibly have thought they were legal - like, the hall to the bathroom was lined with spinning blades.


There is also the question of it actually being an issue. The shyster can claim that anything is wrong and that that the business is out of compliance when in fact they are. We all know the safe harbor provision. Lets use the light switch example I used earlier.

If he goes in and measures the light switches and they are 49 inches off the ground and he send the letter he may be completely off base because they remodeled in 2001 and the ADA then specified 51 inches so they are exempt because of the safe harbor provisions. He is still demanding money, and since they tell him to pound sand he will sue and they have to defend that.

I own two small businesses and I'd defend myself vigorously against this clown, but I'm also an attorney and I could do it myself. (Actually I'd probably hire someone but I have the luxury of not being in such bad economic straits as the gentlemen from the restaurant instant).

/all my facilities are in compliance with applicable law and regulation.
//except for fire extinguishers I have about 3x as many as needed. I am obsessive about fire extinguishers.
 
2012-09-30 04:10:04 PM

Satanic_Hamster: AssAsInAssassin: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]

You have no such right. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act?

Which has what to do with this?

You can't legally refuse service to all black people.

But you CAN refuse service to Bob Smith the Attorney because of his reputation.


Sure, you CAN, but you'd be breaking the law.

Link
 
2012-09-30 04:10:58 PM

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

What state do you live in? Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim. The issue is not whether the problem has been corrected, it is whether the problem existed at the time of the suit.

So if your hypothetical extortionist/lawyer took a picture of the faded lines, then it doesn't matter if the owner painted them the next week. At the time of filing, the problem existed, therefore, there IS a triable issue of fact.


Exactly. Glad we're on the same page.
 
2012-09-30 04:12:33 PM

Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

What state do you live in? Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim. The issue is not whether the problem has been corrected, it is whether the problem existed at the time of the suit.

So if your hypothetical extortionist/lawyer took a picture of the faded lines, then it doesn't matter if the owner painted them the next week. At the time of filing, the problem existed, therefore, there IS a triable issue of fact.

Exactly. Glad we're on the same page.


Oh...gotcha.

In your hypo, the guy had not yet filed the suit when he demanded money. In mine, he had.

You're right, I'm wrong.
 
2012-09-30 04:12:41 PM

Gyrfalcon: Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim.


Most small claims cases involve some sort of "loss," usually financial in nature. A financial error at one time could theoretically create losses over time. Just like becoming ill due to food poisoning can cause a person to miss work.

In a case where not having proper parking caused a problem (say, at a hospital, and a person's medical event was exacerbated), that's worth damages. In a case where a fat-ass can't get his fix at a restaurant? Eh, when the problem is fixed, the small claims case SHOULD be dropped. When it's not, it's not because someone deserves to receive a financial award, it's either because of greed or because one party has deeper pockets than another party.
 
Displayed 50 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report