ADA – drive-by litigation

“Cheap standing” under the ADA: district courts push back.

May 29, 2016 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA - drive-by litigation, ADA - serial litigation Tags: "drive-by" ADA lawsuits, ada litigation, ADA serial litigation, ADA standing, cheap standing ADA

ADA serial litigation is possible only because of a judicially created doctrine of cheap standing. What do I mean by cheap standing? Standing that can be obtained at minimal expense and inconvenience. Serial litigation is economically feasible only because a plaintiff can obtain standing merely by seeing a non-compliant parking space and then leverage that standing to include still unknown ADA violations inside a business. Cheap standing makes it possible for a few law firms and their pet plaintiffs to file dozens or hundreds of lawsuits in a short period of time with such small expense that they can still make a substantial profit on the modest settlements that are usually demanded. Cheap standing is the foundation on which serial ADA litigation rests. More

The Economist covers serial ADA litigation – Hunt quoted.

May 27, 2016 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA - drive-by litigation, ADA - Hotels, ADA - serial litigation, ADA FHA Litigation General, Restaurants, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ADA drive-by litigation, ADA serial litigation, frequent filers, Strojnik, The Economist

This is a bit of tooting our own horn. In an article published in the May 28 edition of The Economist, and available on-line at the following link (“Frequent Filers”) Richard is quoted concerning the serial litigation epidemic. This followed several hours of interviews with reporter Benjamin Sutherland in which Richard provided background information on the ADA and so-called “drive-by” litigation. You don’t have to wait for The Economist to publish another article, or wonder how much information was left out because of format restrictions. Just subscribe to our blog for frequent updates on the ADA and FHA.

As an aside, the Arizona attorney quoted in the article, Peter J. Strojnik, should not be confused with his son P. Kristofer Strojnik, (also sometimes referred to as Peter K. Strojnik), who was the subject of a May 13, 2016 ruling from the Central District of California. In Brooke v. Clay Andro Peterson, 2016 WL 2851440 (C.D.Cal. May 13, 2016) the District Judge dismissed three lawsuits filed by P. Kristofer Strojnik that were based solely on telephone calls to various hotels by the plaintiff. The reasoning will apply to many of P. Kristofer Strojnik’s cases, and should be studied by any lawyer representing clients sued by the plaintiff, Ms. Brooke, or by P. Kristofer Strojnik’s firm. For more detail, see tomorrow’s blog – “Dialing for Dollars Revisited.” You will find more information on P. Kristofer Strojnik at the State Bar of Arizona website: Phoenix Attorney Peter K. Strojnik Suspended
for Threatening Opposing Party with Public Shaming.