After more than 400 lawsuits, disabled man can sue no more

[Liberal_in_LA]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wheelchair18-2008nov18,0,2293830.story

After more than 400 lawsuits, disabled man can sue no more



By Carol J. Williams
November 18, 2008

Whether Jarek Molski is a crusader for the disabled or an extortionist who abused the law for personal gain, the vexatious litigant has filed his last lawsuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear the case of Molski vs. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., owner of a Chinese restaurant in Solvang, Calif., in a legal Waterloo for the 38-year-old Woodland Hills man. Molski filed more than 400 suits under the Americans With Disabilities Act before a federal judge barred him from future litigation.


In a highly unusual action in 2004, U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie, who has since died, branded Molski a "hit-and-run plaintiff," accusing him of systematic extortion of businesses across California.

Molski, who has used a wheelchair since a motorcycle accident two decades ago, sued restaurants, bowling alleys, wineries and other retail outlets for insufficient handicapped parking, misplaced handrails and other violations of the disabilities act, demanding that business owners be fined $4,000 for every day their facilities failed to meet exacting federal standards.

Fear of adverse judgments compelled many to settle out of court, earning the Polish-born plaintiff hundreds of thousands of dollars in less than two years.

[DS1]

1. *sets brakes*

:popcorn:

[valerief]

2. It's okay that the businesses don't comply with the law. I guess that's what

the judge is telling America with this decision.

Sheesh. America, a cheesy version of Soviet Russia.

[MrCoffee]

7. Wrong

The 9th Circuit Court is telling plaintiffs that they can't lie about alleged injuries in order to bring suit.

[valerief]

24. Noop. It doesn't matter if he's doing it for personal gain. Law enforcers should be

requiring the businesses to comply with the law. Since they're obviously not, then someone's gotta do it. Why not him?

Why bother having laws that are never enforced? That's a question we're always asking Congress, right?

[Midlodemocrat]

9. No, the judge is telling this one particular guy who essentially

sued businesses for a living, to knock it off.

[Midlodemocrat]

3. Looks to me like he was simply extorting the money for his own gain.

If his taking on businesses for discrimination under the ADA and DONATED the money somewhere, that would be a different story.

[NeedleCast]

4. Exactly

[Tempest]

10. Since the story doesn't say what he did with the money

You're assuming he kept it.

Basing an opinion on incomplete information is as bad as basing it on no information.

[Midlodemocrat]

13. earning the Polish-born plaintiff hundreds of thousands of dollars in less than two

Earning generally means keeping it, sorry you don't understand what that word means.

And, do you honestly think that the judge would have put the kibosh on this if the guy was actually doing something with it besides lining his own pockets?

:eyes:

[Tempest]

15. Earning means keeping it?

Are you serious?

I guess the tens of thousands I donated and contributed to charitable organizations from my EARNINGS never happened.

Jeesh. :eyes:


After 400+ lawsuits, the judge may not have even considered the money part, but the administrative fee and time it took out of the court system.

Again with the assumptions.

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Are you for real?

You DONATED. The charities profitted from your earnings.

This guy EARNED several thousand dollars from his lawsuits.

Are you the guy in the article? Because you're sure putting a lot into defending an asshole.

Plonk.

[valerief]

25. Why are you defending the law-breaking businesses? nt

[123infinity]

27. tens of thousands??

uh huh. yeah. right.

[LanternWaste]

18. Then I'm a horrible person

Then I'm a horrible person for having the opinion that tangerines are yummy-- despite the fact that I haven't had one in years, making my information incomplete and/or out of date...

[Warpy]

17. If he'd been suing on behalf of the disabled

he wouldn't have allowed them to settle. He'd have forced them to change their accommodations as part of the settlement.

He's just making a career of "pay me to make it go away" lawsuits.

[Midlodemocrat]

19. Exactly my take.

Altruistic behavior would have shown up somewhere in either his refusing to settle until improvements were made or donating the proceeds of the settlement.

[MrCoffee]

5. The 9th Circuit Court makes it pretty clear that this guy was a vexatious litigant

He flat out lied about the injuries he alleged that the various plaintiffs caused. Barring a plaintiff from filing suit is necessary on occasion, and this appears to be one of those occasions.

[Midlodemocrat]

6. Sounds dangerously close to legal advice to me.

:hide:

[loyalkydem]

8. as a diabled person

I'm disappointed to see him trying to make money off these business

[Throd]

11. My uncle's son-in-law is one of those scumbags.

He goes around looking for businesses to sue for the flimsiest of reasons. For him, it isn't about getting small businesses to comply with ADA guidelines. It is about shaking them down for cash under threat of a lawsuit. The whole family has pretty much written him off.

[Selatius]

12. What he did is like how hick-town police departments issue traffic tickets.

He probably calculated that the private settlements were more than sufficient to cover the costs of litigation. He would keep the remainder as profit, while at the same time as holding up the veneer of upholding a law such as the ADA.

If you can get pulled over for going 1 mile over the speed limit, you probably will at some point in your life. The only difference is this person didn't carry a government badge.

[TomInTib]

14. I am a firm supporter of ADA, but jerk-offs like this guy are Nazis.

They pull that shit all the time in our town, tooling around with tape-measures, cameras and such.

[donco6]

20. Here, too. But they've been very quiet lately. n/t

[musiclawyer]

21. That it took so long is what's mind boggling

These types of litigants can usually brought to a halt after about 10 suits , assuming cooperation from the various defense counsel. This porbably would not have happened in many areas of the country where the population and number of filings is smaller and the defense bar is smaller, more tight knit.

[MrCoffee]

22. I would think that barring a plaintiff after only 10 suits would be an abuse of discretion

10 doesn't seem like it would be enough to make a historical pattern of vexatious litigation.

[KamaAina]

23. If DOJ and/or the California AG's office were vigorously enforcing ADA,

as well as CA statutes which are even more stringent, there wouldn't have been a niche for such as Molski. :eyes:

[valerief]

26. Absotively correct! nt

[Homer Wells]

28. Now, if some Federal Judge would do the same thing

to those religious wackos out in Kansas, (Phelps et.al.) I would be a happy camper!

[petronius]

29. That's going to make a lot of businesses around here happy (although it's probably too late)

He made a swing through this area a few years ago and ended up sueing over a dozen places, some of which ended up closing.

I don't object to ADA allowing people to sue for genuine injuries/exclusions, but I have no problem with the court shutting down someone who made a career out of seeking out violations for his own gain. He may have been following the letter of the law, but he was certainly violating the spirit...

[meow2u3]

30. It's called barratry

This guy is guilty of barratry, which is defined by repeatedly filing nuisance lawsuits (usually for personal gain). If he did that in Pennsylvania, he'd not only be banned from filing lawsuits, he'd be facing up to a year in jail.