{"id":4256,"date":"2018-06-06T13:01:44","date_gmt":"2018-06-06T13:01:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/accessdefense.com\/?p=4256"},"modified":"2018-06-18T14:53:29","modified_gmt":"2018-06-18T14:53:29","slug":"ada-standing-when-the-truth-dont-lie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/accessdefense.com\/?p=4256","title":{"rendered":"ADA Standing “when the truth don’t lie.”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Francis<\/a>“‘What\u00a0is truth?’ said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.” These words from Francis Bacon’s famous essay on truth often seem to apply in the earliest part of an ADA lawsuit. Truth is important, but takes a back seat to procedure.\u00a0 <\/em>In Gastelum v. Canyon Hospitality. LLC,<\/em> CV-17-02792-PHX-GMS, 2018 WL 2388047 (D. Ariz. May 25, 2018) the Court found a way to get to the truth early in the case, before the cost of litigation made it irrelevant.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff is a serial filer associated with Phoenix attorney Peter Strojnik, who has a long history of mass ADA filings. According to the Court, Mr. Strojnik and Mr. Gastelum are engaged in a joint enterprise to sue local hotels “without reference to whether Mr. Gastelum actually had any intent to make future visits to those facilities for reasons not related to his pursuit of ADA<\/span> claims against them.” That enterprise sued more than 125 different Phoenix area hotels in a matter of months.<\/p>\n

In the\u00a0Canyon Hospitality<\/em>\u00a0case the Court consolidated a number of cases filed by Gastelum and Strojnik for the purpose of determining standing. This step, along with\u00a0the conduct of depositions, two evidentiary hearings, and the Court’s consideration of other cases filed by Gastelum made it possible for the Court to determine standing not based only on the allegations in individual complaints, but on the facts, which were radically different.<\/p>\n

In ADA cases a critical element of standing is either an intent to return in the future or being deterred from returning by ADA violations. This is critical because the ADA provides only for injunctive relief, and without an intent to return there is no likelihood of future injury to justify an injunction. When\u00a0a plaintiff like Gastelum alleges in his Complaint that he intends to return or is deterred that allegation, is taken by many courts to be is sufficient to get past an early Motion to Dismiss. In\u00a0Canyon Hospitality<\/em> the Court was willing to look beyond the individual pleadings\u00a0to ask whether the allegations were credible when repeated more than a hundred times:<\/p>\n

While the need to look at the specificity with which the Plaintiff has pleaded the likelihood of future visits might be less stringent had he only sued one hotel in the Phoenix area . . . \u00a0the inquiry must be more exacting where he has expressed only a rote intent to \u201cbook rooms\u201d in 133 other lodgings in the same geographic area.<\/p>\n

What might be plausible said once becomes implausible when repeated 133 times. This points out the\u00a0\u00a0fundamental ethical and moral problem with the serial litigation industry – it is based on a lie; that is, that the plaintiff actually intends to return or is deterred from returning to dozens of businesses he or she never visited before and has no reason to visit again. Courts that refuse to look at all of a plaintiff’s litigation activity when deciding whether an individual complaint meets the pleading standards in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure facilitate this lie by making it so expensive to prove the truth that\u00a0it is cheaper to just give up.*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Court also found Mr. Gastelum’s pleadings were defective because they failed to tie his disability to the supposed ADA violations and his testimony confirmed that in many cases he had not suffered any injury at all. He complained, for example, about the lack of accessible hotel shuttles but admitted that the never used a hotel shuttle (presumably because his lawyer drove him from one hotel to the next). He also alleged that a smoking area was not accessible while admitting he does not smoke. It is in this discussion that the Court makes its most important finding, for it requires not just that a particular condition relate to Mr. Gastelum’s condition, but that the condition had a real effect on his ability to use and enjoy the premises. The Court writes:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Mr. Gastelum alleges, for example, that the Defendant is noncompliant with the ADA<\/span> because \u201c[s]ome parts of the accessible<\/span> routes have a cross slope greater than 1:48.\u201d (Doc. 1, p. 11). As the Supreme Court held in Spokeo<\/em>, however, Mr. Gastelum cannot \u201callege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm\u201d and maintain standing to bring the lawsuit. 136 S.Ct. at 1549. Mr. Gastelum has not alleged that a cross slope that varies from the statutory requirements concretely impacts his ability to enjoy the public accommodation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This reading of the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,\u00a0<\/em>136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) amounts to a rejection of decisions in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere that mere knowledge of a deviation from the ADA construction standards causes an injury.** Those decisions were intended to promote litigation as a means to advance public policy, but they have done so at the expense of respect for the Constitution and its requirement\u00a0of a real case or controversy before the courts become involved.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It is noteworthy that despite the Court’s efforts to determine the truth and its ultimate dismissal of many cases some of the cases before it settled while it was working on the matter. That fact reflects the economic reality that winning an ADA case almost always costs more than settling it. The few instances in which a serial plaintiff or its lawyers have been\u00a0defeated usually involve\u00a0defendants willing to spend more to fight than it would have cost to settle.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Cases like Gastelum<\/em> and others, especially in Florida,\u2020 have begun to create a range of cost-effective defense strategies for businesses who are victims of serial filers. Our trademark – Fix First, then Fight – remains the foundation of any defense strategy, but in many courts a defendant will have additional\u00a0ways to obtain relief and avoid wasting money on lawyers that could be spent on making their business more accessible.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* See our earlier blogs on these pleading standards, “Iqbal, Twombly and the ADA<\/a>” and “It\u2019s time to apply Iqbal and Twombly to ADA pleadings<\/a>.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
** See our discussion in “Dialing for Dollars \u2013 Ninth Circuit encourages abusive ADA litigation<\/a>.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u2020 Some of those cases are discussed in “ADA Standing \u2013 A real limit on cheap standing for serial filers.<\/a>” and “ADA standing and pleading \u2013 common sense from the 8th Circuit<\/a>.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n