ADA – serial litigation
-
If at first you don’t succeed. . . alternative milk litigation again.
On November 5, 2024 Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the claims in Munoz v Peet’s Coffee, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-01764 in the Northern District of California. I’ve blogged about these cases recently¹ so I won’t go into detail. As might be expected, the plaintiff lost. The reasons were simple. The plaintiff’s first claim was the addition… Continue reading
-
Mootness – the Kraken of ADA defenses
For ADA Title III cases mootness devours or destroys, or choose your word the claims of the plaintiff because under Title III the only relief available to the plaintiff is an injunction requiring the defendant to remove whatever architectural or communication barriers might exist. If there are no barriers then there is nothing useful the… Continue reading
-
ADA and FHA Standing – good news, bad news and a twist
I don’t usually blog about my own cases because it requires that I put in a disclaimer.¹ However, a trio of district court decisions, including two in cases where I represent the defendant, justify another look at standing after Transunion and the Laufer cases.² I’ll start with the good news of an apparent trend in… Continue reading
-
Acheson Hotels – I had to say something
My Google News feed has had dozens, maybe hundreds of articles about the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the Laufer v Acheson Hotels case. When written by disability rights advocates the positions are what you’d expect; either “whew we dodged a bullet” or “Laufer has standing and the Court saved itself from a horrible mistake.” Business… Continue reading
-
Acheson Hotels: tester standing at the crossroads part 1.
Now that everyone (and I mean everyone¹ ) has weighed in on tester standing as presented to the Supreme Court in Acheson Hotels v Laufer I thought I might as well try to explain the issue for those who don’t live and breathe disabilities rights litigation. In my next blog I’ll look at the legal… Continue reading