Terrell Frederick used the Americans with Disabilities Act to make money and now he, his attorney and third-party law firm are in trouble.

In 2017, News 5 Investigates uncovered an elaborate scheme to extort money from local business owners.

One case went to federal court and in a bombshell ruling, the magistrate judge has recommend possible jail time for the plaintiffs.

Over a two-week time period, Frederick filed 43 nearly identical lawsuits against Colorado Springs businesses, alleging they weren't complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In several cases filed, Frederick claimed the business discriminated against him and his family because the doors took more than 5 lbs. of force to open, but the cyclist with no known disability had no issue opening his apartment door and then shutting it in Chief Investigative Reporter Eric Ross' face after he started asking questions.

Ross asked, "Can we talk to you about the lawsuits you filed,"

"No," Frederick said.

News 5 has given Frederick numerous opportunities to explain his motive behind filing 43 cases, but he has refused.

"This is a scam," attorney Bruce Wright said.

7 days after suing Panda Express, Frederick's attorney sent a letter demanding the Chinese food chain pay $2,750 to drop the lawsuit.

In multiple cases the I-TEAM reviewed, Frederick and his attorney would file lawsuits and then demand thousands of dollars to settle without ever asking for the business to correct the alleged violation, if one existed.

"If they got a quick settlement---$3,000 or $5,000 which would be less than it would cost the business to hire a lawyer, they got their money," Wright said. "If a lawyer appeared and actually started defending the case, they would just move to dismiss the case and walk way. What that tells me is they weren't after enforcing ADA violations. It was just about the money."

Wright says in at least two-thirds of the cases Frederick filed, the business owners fell into the trap and paid the money.

Why is it a trap?

Under the law, a monetary award cannot be issued from an ADA lawsuit. A judge can only order the alleged violation be fixed. Attorneys behind these cases know that and bank on getting businesses to settle.

"These are not ADA advocates," Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) said. "They are advocates for making money off the ADA. The individuals are sometimes not disabled themselves."

Poe has drafted federal legislation to close what he calls a loophole in the law that is allowing anyone to file these lawsuits against businesses for ADA violations which may or may not exist.

H.R. 620 has already passed the House and if approved, the bill would require anyone filing an ADA-related lawsuit to give the business owner notice of the violation first and then time to correct it.

"The law is being abused by unscrupulous individuals, plaintiffs and their attorney who are making money off the disabled and it is shameful and we want to stop that," Poe said in an interview earlier this year with News 5.

It's unclear whether Frederick actually visited all the of the businesses he sued because he failed to provide documentation and evidence the court requested.

A deposition transcript obtained by News 5 Investigates paints a clear picture of how the scene went down:

For every case Frederick filed, he would get paid $50. His attorney, Jeff Emberton, would get $100. The money from the settlement agreements which ranged from $2,500 to $7,500 went to a law firm called Litigation Management Services, or LitMan.

"I think it's safe to say certainly for lawyers who signed up for this scheme, they aren't rocket scientists," Wright said. "Any lawyer who would let somebody else use his law license and sign his name to pleadings that he is responsible for, for $100 a case in my opinion deserves to have his license revoked."

When it came time for court, Frederick and his attorney violated Magistrate Judge Kathleen Tafoya's orders to provide documentation to prove their case.

Litman also ignored a subpena to produce documentation to validate the alleged ADA violations at Panda Express on Powers in Colorado Springs.

Tafoya said the plaintiff and his counsel disobeyed court orders and wasted resources. She ordered the plaintiff to pay for Panda Express' attorney's fees and even took things a step farther, recommending a U.S. District Court judge hold Frederick, Emberton and LitMan in contempt of court.

Emberton could eventually lose his license and Magistrate Judge Tafoya also recommended the court consider banning any future lawsuits from Litman without prior approval.

A contempt of court charge could eventually lead to jail time.

"Careful consideration of the matter leads to the conclusion that incarceration, rather than a fine, is the appropriate coercive remedy in the case at bar," Judge Tafoya said.

News 5 reached out to attorney Jeff Emberton and Litigation Management Services for comment. Neither has responded.

You can read our original report on this specific case by clicking here.

Here is a copy of the order:

BY REP. TED POE (R-TEXAS), OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/13/18 08:30 AM EST 0

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Last year, Jerry’s Artarama Art Supplies in West Palm Beach, Florida was sued for a toilet paper dispenser that was not situated at the correct height. In 2016, a popular Colorado restaurant was forced to close its doors after a person from Florida sued the restaurant for its incorrect positioning of urinals in the men’s restroom. Another suit alleged the pool of an Atlanta hotel lacked a pool lift, but the hotel’s pool was permanently closed and covered; the plaintiff had never visited the property.

These serial plaintiffs shake down business owners who are forced to either settle or go to court. In many cases, the plaintiffs issue demand letters that threaten to bring a lawsuit for an ADA violation unless the business pays them to drop the lawsuit. These letters frequently fail to inform the business owner exactly what the alleged violation is. So, the business chooses to pay the ransom and put the potential lawsuit behind them. Small “Mom and Pop” business simply cannot afford costly attorneys, so they settle. This leaves the alleged violation unfixed and the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) abused.

These businesses are a few of the thousands of businesses that have been sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by a growing cottage industry of unscrupulous attorneys who seek monetary settlement as a result of these easily correctable violations – many of which are not visible to the naked eye. In an alarming number of cases, it is obvious that the plaintiff never visited the property it filed a lawsuit against. Serial Plaintiff Howard Cohan has filed 1,114 ADA Lawsuits since 2012, making him one of Florida’s most prolific ADA abusers. What’s worse? He’s never visited many of the small businesses he has sued, instead hiding behind a computer, using mapping programs to determine if a business has an alleged violation.

As vigorous supporters of the letter and spirit of the ADA, I recognize the tremendous positive impact this monumental law has had on our society. There should be consequences for businesses that fail to comply with the ADA, but the law’s purpose is being threatened by attorneys looking to cash in. As the lead co-sponsors of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, I am seeking to improve the law and ensure that its primary purpose – to improve access – is strengthened. This legislation is a reasonable, appropriate, and bipartisan response to address an unintended consequence of one section of the ADA. This result causes businesses who make a good faith effort to comply with the ADA to spend an inordinate amount of time and money responding to demand letters and defending frivolous lawsuits.

These “drive-by” lawsuits all too often create a negative impression about the goals of this important law. Suits of this kind saw a 14 percent increase in 2017, and the number has more than tripled since 2013. “Demand letters” are not counted in this number, however, they are on the increase as well. Many businesses simply pay the demand as opposed to hiring a lawyer to defend themselves, which encourages the practice. Legislation similar to H.R. 620 has been introduced in Congress for almost two decades and was first introduced by Sen, Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), a severely wounded World War II veteran and longtime advocate for the disabled community.

Passing H.R. 620 is good for all stakeholders. Simply having notice of claimed violations with a sufficient level of detail and the opportunity to cure within a limited time period prior to filing a lawsuit will eliminate the abusive tactics that have become commonplace. Barriers to access will be removed more quickly, providing the access that the disabled community needs and deserves, and business owners can re-direct resources from costly litigation to actual remediation of ADA violations. A vote in favor of H.R. 620 will restore the integrity of the ADA and protect the spirit of this historic, important law.

Poe is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/373555-its-time-to-restore-the-integrity-of-the-ada

The challenge of lawsuit mills is a phenomenon uniquely tied to the American civil justice system. Whether it’s consumer products, intellectual property or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), personal injury lawyers are twisting the law to create personal profit at the expense of working class Americans and costing taxpayers millions of dollars every year.

For more than a year, ABC15 Arizona has been investigating the explosion of ADA “drive-by” lawsuits in the state, most of which have been filed by a handful of loosely connected plaintiffs. Drive-by lawsuits involve allegedly injured plaintiffs who never actually attempt to patronize a business, but simply drive business to business collecting addresses and notating minor and technical violations of the law.

With these pieces of data in hand, they then file hundreds of lawsuits utilizing the same or similar language, and in most cases, merely change the name and address on a boilerplate complaint. Business owners, in most cases small, family-owned enterprises, must choose between paying a shakedown settlement or spending several times that amount to fight it in court. Sadly, the shakedown usually works.

ABC15 Arizona’s investigation also unearthed an agreement used with plaintiffs by a company called Litigation Management and Financial Services, LLC (LMFS). The agreement called for a payment of $50 for every lawsuit a disabled plaintiff allowed to be filed on their behalf, with LMFS being “first entitled” to dollars paid out in a settlement.

So while LMFS reportedly dupes unsuspecting disabled persons into lawsuits for $50, they pocket thousands of dollars for each settled lawsuit. This crooked behavior results in millions of dollars being extracted from the pockets of small business owners, workers being laid off, and no better access for the disabled.

Adding insult to injury, LMFS claims to cover all court costs, but that’s only partially true. In one case, LMFS filed over 99 complaints for a single disabled plaintiff, while simultaneously utilizing that person’s eligibility for a waiver of the $400 filing fee. That’s right, while LMFS gets rich extracting cash from vulnerable business owners, taxpayer money is being used to partially finance their money-making lawsuit scheme. As their lawsuit mill scheme spreads throughout the Four Corners, taxpayers and small business owners in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona are at risk.

This type of systemic abuse is particularly repulsive, as these personal injury lawyers present themselves as advocates for those in need. However, their settlements focus on self-enrichment with little to no regard for improving accessibility for the disabled.

Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) has been fighting the battle against meritless lawsuits for years, and fortunately, help is on the way from Washington, D.C. There is a rare, bipartisan solution making its way through Congress that would require a notice be given to a business before a lawsuit is filed, allowing them the opportunity to fix any alleged violations. The measure, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620), is authored by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) and is supported by co-sponsors from across the political spectrum.

This commonsense, non-partisan piece of legislation places the focus of the ADA back where it should be: increasing access for persons with disabilities, and not lining the pockets of unethical trial lawyers.

Link to article: https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/12/14/congress-should-take-action-on-ada-drive-by-lawsuits/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

The fight over disabled rights has led to Florida being No. 2 in the country when it comes to Americans with Disabilities Act public accommodation lawsuits.

A new state law aims to curb lawsuits that critics claim are being used to take advantage of businesses, not help those with disabilities.

"What they're doing is like a drive-by suing," property owner Juan de Dios Cabrera told Local 10 News.

He told Local 10 News investigative reporter Amy Viteri that he's owned the property where La Estrella de Oro pawn shop on Northwest 36th Avenue in Miami has been for 20 years.

He's one of several businesses owners who was sued for violations of the ADA, but only learned of those violations through a lawsuit.

"They just drive by, no sign, boom, sue," Cabrera explained. "No notice, nothing. They just sue you."

In May, a man named Renzo Barberi sued him over violations in his parking lot, which Cabrera claimed was being renovated at the time.

He's not alone. Barberi, a so-called ADA tester, has filed more than 400 public accommodation lawsuits against all kinds of businesses, including several others on Cabrera's street. The problem, Cabrera said, is that Barberi was never at his business.

"There's no record of him coming even close to this place," he said.

Rodney Regan went through the same ordeal at his restaurant in Lake Worth, Brogue's Down Under, when he was sued for violations in his bathroom. Among the violations, toilet-roll holders were inches too close to the handrail.

Regan said his business has worked to be welcoming to all patrons. The restaurant has sponsored and even hosted events for local charity Wheels for Kids, which helps children with disabilities.

He said whoever came to photograph his business never checked his other bathroom, which is fully accessible. Still, Regan's attorney told him it would be cheaper to settle the lawsuit for $8,500.

"Pretty upset, yep," Regan said.

Janet Hoyt, who sued Regan, has filed more than 100 lawsuits, including against nearly every other business on Regan's street. Hoyt also sued bridal retailer Alfred Angelo, which closed its doors and filed for bankruptcy in July.

Regan told Viteri that the business can find no evidence of Janet Hoyt ever being there.

"She gets these guys to come and do the photographing and then they use her name," Regan said. "That's what I believe."

Numbers from the International Council of Shopping Centers show ADA lawsuits jumped 243 percent between 2013-16. Florida ranks second in the country, behind California.

Local 10 News tracked down Renzo Barberi, the man behind many of these lawsuits.

"It's an issue that I take dear to my heart, obviously," Barberi, who uses a wheelchair to get around, told Viteri.

He said he got involved in the lawsuits after losing the use of his legs in a motorcycle accident. He now lives off disability payments.

"What kind of compensation do you receive from these suits?" Viteri asked.

"Absolutely no compensation for me," Barberi said. "What I'm searching for is compliance."

Barberi maintains that he visited every single one of the more than 400 businesses he has sued, even though many claim to have no record of him being there.

"I can't speak for the businesses or whatever they say," he said.

Barberi said, in his experience, legal action is the only way to motivate businesses to make changes.

When asked if it was fair to sue businesses without any warning or opportunity to correct the problems, Barberi answered, "After 20 years of the law being out there, absolutely."

Some state lawmakers disagree. In July, Gov. Rick Scott signed House Bill 727 into law. It gives businesses the chance to hire someone to pinpoint problems and file a remediation plan with the state's Department of Business and Professional Regulations, which could protect them in future lawsuits.

"The surge is thanks to a small group of individuals that have turned frivolous ADA lawsuits into a cottage industry," the bill's sponsor, Rep. Tom Leek, R-Daytona Beach, wrote in a statement. "My bill was authored to take the ADA from the drive-by-lawsuit industry and give it back to the people for whom the ADA was written for -- Americans with disabilities."

Carlos Gazitua is president of the Miami-Dade chapter of the Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association, which pushed for the bill and wants to get the word out.

"I've had personal sit downs with owners crying about this issue and saying that this is, in essence, legal extortion," Gazitua said.

Cabrera was ordered by a judge to pay $11,500 to Barberi and his attorneys in September. He said no one notified him of the order until U.S. marshals showed up at the pawn shop on his property threatening to seize goods. Ultimately, he said, he had to pay close to $16,000 in cash.

"They know exactly what they're doing," Cabrera said. "They're stealing our money. They're stealing people's money."

Local 10 News also contacted ADA tester Janet Hoyt through her attorney, but he declined requests for an interview.

The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations said its website should be operational in the coming days for businesses to register a plan, but in the meantime, owners can contact the agency directly.

Link to article: https://www.local10.com/news/local-10-investigates/local-businesses-suffer-from-ada-drive-by-lawsuits

The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed by Congress in 1990 (and was later amended in 2009). It was the nation’s first comprehensive civil rights law focused on addressing the needs of disabled Americans. There are several different parts to the ADA. The two parts that get the most attention (and the only two I deal with) are Titles I and III. Title I prohibits discrimination in employment. Title III deals with public accommodations, i.e., making facilities and websites accessible to those with disabilities. Title III has provided significant benefits to individuals with disabilities, and the law was obviously well-intended.

But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The United States Access Board, an independent federal agency, is tasked with developing accessibility guidelines and standards for Title III, known as the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (commonly referred to as the ADAAG). These guidelines deal with everything from the slope of parking spaces and the thresholds in doorways to signage height. Given the technical complexity of the guidelines, it’s not hard to find a violation of some kind at practically any business.

Title III permits private individuals to sue non-compliant businesses for alleged violations, no matter how minor or technical the alleged violation. And while Title III plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary damages, the statute contains an attorneys’ fees provision for successful plaintiffs. Using the attorneys’ fees provision as leverage, it has become common to see plaintiffs’ attorneys specializing in Title III litigation to pair with a repeat or serial plaintiff and file dozens (and in some cases hundreds) of these lawsuits against various businesses.

Some sources place the average settlements in these cases at around $16,000 (not including the costs of the business’s expert witnesses and attorneys and the expense of any agreed remediations), while the cost of fighting the case can easily land in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This has resulted in a phenomenon referred to as “drive-by lawsuits,” which a Forbes article called an “extortion scheme [that] is now a perfected business plan executed by unethical attorneys.” 60 Minutes recently did a segment on drive-by Title III suits.

There were 6,601 federal Title III actions filed in 2016. California bore the brunt of these lawsuits, with 2,468. Florida placed second, with 1,663 suits filed. With seemingly no bottom to this well, plaintiffs’ attorneys are quickly ramping up litigation in new jurisdictions as well, such as New York, Arizona, and Texas.

Can anything be done to stymie this tide of Title III lawsuits?

Florida recently enacted House Bill 727 (effective July 1, 2017), also known as the Accessibility of Places of Public Accommodation. The new law was designed to address the large number of Title III cases being filed in Florida by allowing non-governmental businesses to hire an accessibility expert to inspect its premises for Title III compliance. The business can then file with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation either a certificate of conformity (stating the business is in compliance with Title III) or a remediation plan (stating that the business will conform with Title III within a specific time period). The filings will be publicly accessible.

The law goes on to require courts in Florida to consider any certificate of conformity or remediation filed prior to a Title III lawsuit when determining if the case was filed in good faith and whether the plaintiff is entitled to fees and costs. It is unclear, however, to what extent (if any) federal courts will honor Florida’s new law. Furthermore, the filed reports could make participating businesses easy-to-find targets for Title III suits. I’m skeptical as to whether Florida’s new law will have a noticeable impact on the Title III litigation in the state.

State attorneys general are also taking action to try and curb serial Title III filings. For example, the Nevada and Arizona attorneys general have intervened in lawsuits in their respective states on various grounds seeking dismissal of cases brought by serial filers.

But will any of this be enough? I’m not sure. I believe there will have to be legislative action on the federal level to effectively curb serial filers and their attorneys. Florida’s House Bill 727 may be a good place to start with such legislation, but greater clarity in such legislation would be necessary to be effective.

Link to article: https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/stopping-drive-by-lawsuits/

The results of our 2017 ADA Title III lawsuit count are in, putting a fifth consecutive year (since we began tracking in 2013) of growth in the number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court. In 2017, 7,663 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in federal court — 1,062 more than in 2016. While a bit slower growth than in 2016(which saw an 1,812, or 37% year over year increase) over 2015, this 14% percent increase is almost double the 2014-2015 8% increase, demonstrating a continued upward trend in the number of filings.

ADA Title III Lawsuits in Federal Court: 2013-2017: 2013 (2722); 2014 (4436, 63% increase over 2013); 2015 (4789, 8% increase over 2014); 2016 (6601, 37% increase over 2015); 2017 (7663, 14% increase over 2016)

California and Florida continue to be hotbeds of litigation, with 2,751 and 1,488 lawsuits (up from 2,468 in CA in 2016 and down from 1,663 in FL) respectively. New York is the big story, having almost doubled its 543 lawsuits filed in 2016 to 1023 in 2017. Utah moved up in the ranks, with a more than doubling of federal lawsuit filings, from 124 to 360. Nevada, not in the top 10 states for filings in 2016, is relatively close behind with 276 lawsuits, while the 2016 holder of the fifth spot, Texas, dropped to number nine, cutting its 267 2016 number down by more than half, to 129. Arizona, with 335 lawsuit filings in 2016, dropped out of the top 10 in 2017. Colorado’s numbers also more than doubled, from 92 in 2016 to 215 in 2017; and New Jersey newly entered the top 10 this year with 108 lawsuits. Georgia, held its sixth spot on the chart, also holding fairly steady at 187 lawsuits, a slight decrease from the 193 filed in 2016. Finally, Pennsylvania showed relatively modest growth, increasing by 80 lawsuits over its 102 2016 count. Here are the numbers for the top ten states:

CA: 2751FL: 1488NY: 1023UT: 360NV: 276CO: 215GA: 187PA: 182TX: 129NJ: 108

Similar to last year, while physical accessibility lawsuits remain common, these numbers continue to be driven largely by the vast numbers of website accessibility lawsuit filings, many by new attorneys in familiar (CA, FL, NY) jurisdictions. The extreme increase in New York is likely due at least in part to 2017 federal court decisions that have likely embolded plaintiffs’ attorneys in that jurisdiction. Note that these numbers of course do not include the many demand letters plaintiffs sent to businesses asserting website accessibility claims, do not include lawsuits filed only in state courts, and are conservative estimates, as our research methods are sound in finding at least the numbers we report here, and it is entirely likely we have not captured every ADA Title III filed in federal court.

Meanwhile, Congress has continued legislative efforts to provide business some relief from “drive-by” physical accessibility lawsuits.

The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, introduced January 24, 2017 as H.R. 620 by Texas Representative Ted Poe, would, among other things, codify a “notice and cure period” that would prohibit a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit based on failure to remove an architectural barrier unless the plaintiff has first given the businesses notice of the alleged violations and an opportunity to provide a plan to address them. On October 30, 2018, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill, and it is scheduled for referral to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice on February 8, 2017. Some states also continued their own legislative reform efforts, such as Florida HB 727, effective July 1, 2017; and in Nevada the State Attorney General intervened in a federal ADA Title III lawsuit by a serial plaintiff who had filed at least 275 lawsuits seven months.

We will, as always, continue to keep tracking lawsuit filings, legislative efforts, and other breaking developments and keep you up to date — as the Title III trend shows no signs of cooling down in 2018.

Source: https://www.adatitleiii.com/2018/02/ada-title-iii-lawsuits-increase-by-14-percent-in-2017-due-largely-to-website-access-lawsuits-physical-accessibility-legislative-reform-efforts-continue/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=LinkedIn-integration

KUTV Salt Lake City, Utah

Multiple Sclerosis has taken Kraig McGee's ability to walk. He says he's glad there is a federal law that requires businesses to make accommodations for people in wheelchairs, like him.

But McGee says he is concerned with what he sees as an abuse of the law. Thousands of businesses around the country, including his family’s in American Fork, are being slapped with lawsuits over arguably small infractions of the American’s with Disabilities Act.

Instead of paying the huge court costs, businesses like McGee’s Stamp and Trophy are told they can pay to make the complaint go away - but only by acting quickly.

Business owners Get Gephardt spoke with last May claim they had no idea they weren't in compliance until smacked with a demand letter or lawsuit, and then they felt strong armed into paying.

Now, Utah Rep. Norm Thurston wants to make it harder for what he calls, "Drive-by lawsuits."

"We think congress never intended for people to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just by driving up and down streets and dropping off letters in people's mailboxes,” he said.

Thurston is sponsoring The Bad Faith Demand Letters Concerning Americans with Disabilities Act. The bill is aimed at making it illegal for a lawyer to strong arm a company into paying.

Outlawed would be saying the amount to settle "will increase" if the business tries to fight back or doesn't settle quickly.

The bill would also seek to make sure a disabled person actually had trouble at a business by requiring demand letters include, "the name of the person," "the time" a violation was witnessed and a detail description of the ADA "violation" at the business.

And, if a business gets a “bad-faith” letter anyway, the business could actually turn around and sue the person who sent it.

“To this point, I would have to say there are very, very small number of people who are opposed to making this sort of change,” Thurston said his bill’s chances.

There could be some legal challenges to the bill. The American's with Disabilities Act is a federal law, and a state law isn’t allowed to supersede a federal law.

Thurston says he thinks he's structured the bill in a way that is legal because it wouldn't stop a disabled person from being able to sue over ADA violations.

Lawmakers in Congress are also considering amending the ADA to require businesses be notified of violations, and given a chance to address them, before a lawsuit can be filed.

Link to article: http://kutv.com/news/get-gephardt/utah-lawmaker-aims-to-stop-drive-by-ada-lawsuits

“Drive-by.” “Shakedown.” “Legalized extortion.”

The invective came fast and furious at a meeting at Mancini’s Char House a couple of weeks ago. The place was packed with St. Paul small-business owners, all of whom had received legal notices in the mail.

“I was expecting 10 people to show up. It was more like 40,” said Brenda Lamb, owner of the downtown Candyland.

The focus of everyone’s ire: A new batch of lawsuits, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, had hit numerous businesses along St. Paul’s West Seventh Street, from Mancini’s to DeGidio’s to McDonald’s.

Soon, there was some chatting, and an owner of Shamrocks took a phone call.

He promptly turned and announced, “They got me, too!”

Years after they first made headlines in Minnesota, the ADA lawsuits are now appearing in force in St. Paul. State legislation was passed months ago to limit such lawsuits — but they have merely shifted to another venue.

Businesses are being accused of violating a law that has been around since 1990. And the lawyer behind many of the suits argues that 27 years has been time enough for businesses to make their parking properly labeled and close enough; restrooms usable for those in wheelchairs; and entryways accessible for everyone.

“In light of all the publicity this has received, I find it harder and harder to accept pleas of ignorance by noncompliant business owners,” said lawyer Patrick Michenfelder of St. Michael.

At the meeting, many business owners had already chosen not to fight.

“There were so many people that settled, I was really shocked,” Lamb said.

“I’ve been in business 55 years; I’ve never experienced anything like this,” said David Leventhal, owner of Highland Park’s Cecil’s Deli, which settled one claim filed by a different lawyer only to be served with a new one. He admits being noncompliant with ADA but contends that the fixes needed for compliance are impossible.

The rueful camaraderie of the business owners’ meeting masked plenty of anger and angst, later exacerbated by the announced closing of the original Red’s Savoy Pizza on East Seventh Street, which had recently settled such a suit — but whose owners still fretted about ADA compliance.

Just a week after the passing of its founder, Earl “Red” Schoenheider, his children have decided to close the original Red’s Savoy location. The 421 E. Seventh St. building, which the family does not own, is not ADA compliant, and has some major structural issues that need to be fixed, said company spokesman Reed Daniels.

“It played a role. As for pros and cons, it was another thing in the ‘con’ category,” said Reed Daniels, the business’s marketing director. To make the building fully compliant would have required updates costing in the low six figures, Daniels said. The death of pizzeria founder Earl “Red” Schoenheider sealed the building’s fate.

City officials showed up at the Mancini’s meeting, honoring an invite.

“We’re concerned as well,” said Robert Humphrey, spokesman for the Department of Safety and Inspections, which sent a staffer. “At this stage, there’s not a lot the city can do.”

Michenfelder says the costs of the suits and ADA compliance — for Red’s Savoy, in particular — are being exaggerated. In fact, there are federal safeguards that prevent ADA compliance from shutting a business down.

As for the meeting, he said, “I wish I would’ve been invited.”

STATE FIX DEFUNCT

Michenfelder draws an analogy to America’s civil rights movement.

“You get a lot of blowback when minorities stand up and fight for rights, if those minorities have been ignored for so long,” he says. “Compliance doesn’t happen voluntarily. And the government hasn’t dedicated resources to create compliance.”

City officials don’t argue with that last part. St. Paul, like most cities, checks for ADA compliance only when something is built or renovated. Annual checks don’t happen. And the state doesn’t do it either.

But last session, the Legislature — supported by business lobbyists and the state-run Council on Disability — passed a law that said businesses had to receive a letter before being sued over ADA compliance: Businesses would get 60 days to fix things before they could be served a lawsuit.

Business owners and their attorneys say they’ve yet to encounter anyone who was against ADA and wouldn’t fix things if given the chance.

Then why haven’t they already? Michenfelder asks. He now makes claims under federal law, bypassing state law.

When asked why he doesn’t file under state law and give businesses a chance to fix problems without court fees, Michenfelder says that would equate to no action at all.

“We dedicate the time to investigate the claim properly,” he says. If that work of taking photos and outlining alleged violations is spent just to send a business owner a letter and have it be resolved without any fee, “that equates to slamming the courthouse doors,” he says.

“It’s economics,” Michenfelder says. “The lawyers will not be able to do it.” And people without lawyers tend to be ignored, he says.

The same argument was made on the Senate floor, says state Sen. Nick Frentz, DFL-Mankato, who pushed for the ADA revamp in the Senate. Senators acknowledged that without fees, lawyers wouldn’t work; the debate was over how “minimal” the fees might be.

There is a catch in the federal law that wasn’t there under the state one. Plaintiffs — the people doing the suing — aren’t able to collect for damages. Only for attorneys’ fees.

But Michenfelder says his clients still collect: When he wins or settles, he gives them a portion of his court fees.

Either way, the money has led some lawmakers to question the motives behind the lawsuits.

“How many disabled people go to each business on the street, the next one and the next one? It’s clear they’re simply just looking for a violation,” said state Rep. Dennis Smith, R-Maple Grove, who sponsored the ADA bill in the House.

Michenfelder said there’s a reason for the blanket approach.

“A lot of people who do this work turn into advocates for a cause. Those type of people are the type that would go back” to multiple businesses in a row.

THE CLIENTS

In the St. Paul cases, there are two main clients. Gerald Doyen, 49, a below-the-knee amputee with a hand deformity who uses a wheelchair; and Michael Ray Marchand, 65, who lost most of a leg and suffered severe burns in a motorcycle accident in 1985.

Requests to talk with them, made through Michenfelder, were declined. Attempts to contact them independently were also unsuccessful.

Michenfelder said his clients “lack experience in dealing with the media and are mindful of the negative view so many have of these cases.”

They are part of a larger group, which Michenfelder said had five members whom he declined to identify by name, called the Midwest Disability Initiative. After registering as a Minnesota nonprofit in February of last year, they are listed as a co-plaintiff on every lawsuit.

“The purpose of MDI is to ‘make a trail and leave a path’ by holding businesses that ignore the requirements of the ADA accountable,” complaints state.

The agent of that initial February registration, Traci Bradley, listed an apartment in Minneapolis’ Phillips neighborhood as her office. Sharing that apartment was Craig T. Seifert, the group’s lone incorporator who is also its executive director.

According to state records, Traci Bradley is one of more than 20 aliases of Traci Lynn Rankin, who has served six prison sentences, with convictions on credit card fraud, robbery, and multiple theft and drug charges, dating from 2001 to last December.

Attempts to reach her were unsuccessful, but Seifert — who confirmed Bradley was Rankin — said he’d asked her to sign as a favor.

“When I was sick, I had her take the papers down there to file,” said Seifert, who added that he’s known Rankin since she was 18. “She really doesn’t have anything to do with the company at all. I was the one that started it.”

On Friday, after being asked about Rankin, Seifert went to the secretary of state’s office and replaced her as the group’s agent. Michenfelder said he wasn’t aware of Rankin’s involvement and said she’s never been a named plaintiff in a case.

Seifert has a 1979 burglary conviction and another in 1987 for aggravated robbery. Since then, he has been convicted only of minor traffic offenses.

“I was a drug addict. In and out, but I turned my life around — clean for 27 years — and I like where I’m at,” he said, saying that while he’s not disabled himself, he’s been a disability advocate for years. For several years in the mid-1990s, he ran an occupational rehab center in Richfield.

He said he has known Michenfelder since the 1980s and admired him for his ethics. And when he saw ADA cases popping up in the news, he decided to create a group and initiate some himself. His first was in mid-2016 against Matt’s Bar in Minneapolis, with Marchand, whom he identified as a friend.

TO FIGHT, OR NOT?

Of Michenfelder’s cases, only a fraction — 13 — have been filed in court. The remaining 100 or so he’s held back, saying he won’t file and pay the $425 fee until he knows for a fact that a business will fight it.

The filed cases include suits against Candyland, Cecil’s Deli and Mickey’s Dining Car. Complaints against Red’s Savoy, Mancini’s, the Grand Ole Creamery and DeGidio’s are among the suits that have not been filed in court.

Most of the suits focus on three areas: parking; entries, including whether there’s a ramp; and restrooms — such things as grab bars or the height of towel dispensers.

“These aren’t frivolous lawsuits,” said David Fenley, ADA and access coordinator with the state Council on Disability. “Most of the time, there is some sort of violation there.”

Building owners say there are falsehoods in the complaints: a towel dispenser ignored; pictures taken of the wrong restroom; a tagged toilet that’s actually compliant.

Those suits haven’t been resolved, and thus far, no Minnesota judge has found one of the recent ADA suits to be frivolous.

Most of the suits are against businesses in buildings many decades old. While some accuse Michenfelder of targeting small businesses, he says that’s just the demographic using the dated digs.

Business owners say that even if they fight and get a case dismissed, they still shell out to their own attorney.

Customers wait in line outside Candyland in downtown St. Paul. (Pioneer Press: Andy Rathbun)

Take Candyland: Owner Lamb was sued about not having a table 36 inches or less from the ground, for a person in a wheelchair to sign receipts.

She fought, and in the end signed an affidavit saying a display table near her door served that purpose. The suit was withdrawn.

But she was still out about $15,000 for her lawyer. Compare that to a proposed settlement of $4,000 to $5,000.

“Even though my attorney’s fees were much higher, I wasn’t going to give a dime. It’s legal extortion,” Lamb said. “They’ll find another client. And the laws are always changing.”

Michenfelder notes that since its inception in 1990, the federal ADA has been revamped only once, in 2010.

Then there’s Red’s. The pizzeria settled under a private agreement.

Michenfelder called the settlement a “modest but confidential sum,” and added, “the idea that our case would expose Red’s to anything anywhere near $100,000 is a total falsehood.”

Red’s attorney, Joseph Windler, declined comment.

The Red’s case gets to a larger issue: whether an ADA suit can actually put someone out of business. Officially, it can’t. Federal law says all remediation must be “readily achievable,” meaning no undue hardship to fix.

That may be true for the fix itself, business owners say.

“But the attorney’s fees make me want to throw up every morning,” said Eric Mattson, 75, whose family has owned Mickey’s Dining Car in downtown St. Paul for 80 years. “I would feel better if somebody came in with a gun. We’ve reached the point where we’re literally deciding whether we want to do this anymore.”

Mickey’s — which is on local and national historic registries — is involved in another suitwith Michenfelder about the big three: parking, entry and restrooms.

The entry at Mickey’s Dining Car, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is problematic, according to a lawsuit that says the restaurant is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Owner Eric Mattson says he’s had the entry evaluated and to make it ADA-compliant, he would have to build a ramp all the way into the street at St. Peter and West Seventh streets.

Michenfelder says they’ve already exchanged proposals “that will not impact the historical nature of the property,” including a “modest payment”; while Mattson — whose attorneys did not return calls — said his people have yet to offer a proposal and believes the strictures of the historic marker leave him “exposed forever.”

Others worry that even if they fix everything, the lawsuits could just keep coming with the same equation: settle for a price, or pay your lawyer more.

Michenfelder argues that when it comes to filing false claims, judges — and eventually the state bar — would frown on that.

“Couldn’t you make that same argument for any case? I slipped and fell and I’ll sue. We’d be seeing it in other areas,” he said.

Shamrocks, on West Seventh Street, remodeled in 2010. Which means – unlike most of the businesses served lawsuits – it triggered a recent city ADA inspection and passed.

“They did the restrooms; they did everything,” said city Safety and Inspections spokesman Humphrey.

Still, a couple of weeks ago, Shamrocks got sued for, among other things, a wheelchair ramp that the city deemed fine.

There’s a catch: the ADA was revamped in July 2010, the month after Shamrocks’ construction was completed, according to city records. It’s not clear whether that affected Shamrocks’ standards.

“It’s a tough thing to chew on, when you think you’ve done everything right,” said co-owner Mike Runyon.

PAST NOTORIETY

Michenfelder admits that perception of the practice is hardly positive, based in part on the attorney who kicked it all off in Minnesota.

Paul Hansmeier once represented a group called the Disability Support Alliance — the first to bring the ADA suits across the state.

Hansmeier recently had his law license suspended and was criminally indicted, based on charges unrelated to the ADA suits. He’s accused by federal attorneys of helping to run a “honeypot porn” operation, uploading copyrighted porn to file-sharing sites, then suing and extorting whoever downloaded it with threats of public humiliation.

Hansmeier no longer pursues ADA cases in Minnesota. But his wife, Padraigin “Patty” Browne, has picked up his caseload.

There is no evidence of overlap in past or current membership between the Disability Support Alliance and the Disability Initiative.

But some state lawmakers and lobbyists view the groups similarly.

“What we do need is a federal fix,” said Beth Kadoun, vice president of tax and fiscal policy for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, has tried but never got any traction from either side of the aisle.

“It’s not a partisan thing. You have wounded warriors who need access; you can’t say no to these people,” said Fenley, of the state Council on Disability.

Arizona took a sweeping approach to the suits: its attorney general asked a county court to dismiss more than 1,000 of them, arguing that the group backing them had no legal standing. In February, the court tossed them all.

Fenley worries that the suits will give the disability community — and the ADA — a bad name. He’s going to organize a workshop for St. Paul businesses to educate them on the federal ADA.

It’s something Michenfelder says he’s all for.

“If Minnesota businesses would focus as much effort on that as they do on attempting to discredit the individuals who have the courage to stand up and fight for the rights of the disabled, the lawsuits they are so critical of would not exist,” he said.

With the work he puts in, he says, “I sometimes ask myself, ‘Is it worth it?’ ”

WHAT IS THE ADA?

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. It mandates that employers give reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, and outlines specific rules that make all public accommodations — including private businesses — accessible.

Link to article: https://www.twincities.com/2017/09/06/from-mickeys-to-reds-st-paul-mainstays-confronted-with-ada-complaints/

When Mili Shah got a copy of the lawsuit against her hotel, she knew right away something was off about it. Mili grew up in the hotel business but left to become a lawyer. The business called her back, and she now owns a hotel in the Atlanta area. Reading through the suit, it eventually clicked. The lawsuit was word-for-word identical to the suit her father received against his business. It alleged her pool lacked a pool lift as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, but her hotel’s pool was closed and covered. It was evident the plaintiff had never visited the property.

The lawsuit against Mili was the perfect example of what is called a drive-by lawsuit, where the individuals simply drive by the business, never attempting to patronize it, before filing a lawsuit that is nearly identical to dozens, if not hundreds, of others filed.

Unfortunately, this story could be repeated tens of thousands of times throughout the country. Plaintiffs have been targeting small businesses like her's—restaurants, convenience stores, retail shops and hotels—for vague, meritless lawsuits that allege a violation of the ADA. The lawsuit is followed up by an offer to settle out of court for thousands of dollars, often an amount just lower than it would cost to defend the business in court.

These lawsuits do not accomplish what the ADA was meant to do. It was meant to remove barriers for our fellow Americans with disabilities. Vague lawsuits and greedy offers to settle do nothing but enrich lawyers while leaving small business owners wondering which part, if any, of the ADA law they were in violation of.

Drive-by lawsuits have reached epidemic proportions. More than 18,000 have been filed since 2013, with 2016’s total of 6,601 marking a 37 percent increase year over year. Worse, the pace of lawsuits in the first half of 2017 is up 18 percent over 2016. The escalating scale of the issue prompted Anderson Cooper to investigate it for “60 Minutes” last December, shining a light on it for a national audience.

To curb the abuse of this landmark civil rights law, a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill have sponsored a simple yet critical fix. Eleven Democrats have joined a dozen Republicans in sponsoring the ADA Education and Reform Act by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas). This reform bill would strengthen the ADA and protect small business owners.

Instead of enriching lawyers, it would give business owners a period of time to fix the issues. Instead of vague lawsuits that do not mention the alleged infraction, it would require a written notice with enough specifics to identify the barrier.

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee advanced the bill out of their committee for the second Congress in a row, but that is not enough. Small business owners are calling on Congress to take action to fix this issue, and that means sending this bill to the Senate and then to the president’s desk.

We urge lawmakers sitting on the sidelines of the issue to take a moment to learn Mili’s story, or one of the thousands of other stories just like hers. This bill is critically important for small businesses and would ultimately strengthen the ADA by creating strong incentives to eliminate barriers rather than file lawsuits.

Link to article: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/349835-a-bipartisan-solution-to-stopping-drive-by-lawsuits

WASHINGTON, D.C.--Today, Congressman Ted Poe (TX-02) issued the following statement on the passage of H.R.620, the bi-partisan ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 out of the House Judiciary Committee. This legislation, sponsored by Congressman Poe, will curb frivolous lawsuits filed by cash-hungry attorneys and plaintiffs that abuse the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

“The ADA is a critical law that is designed to make American businesses and facilities more accessible to the disabled,” said Congressman Ted Poe. “However, the integrity of this important law is being threatened by those who wish to make a quick buck off the backs of others. The vast majority of small businesses in America strive to serve their customers to the best of their ability – relying on the ADA as another tool to help ensure that customers with disabilities can enjoy the services that they provide. Unfortunately, unscrupulous attorneys prey on small business owners and file unnecessary lawsuits that abuse the spirit and purpose of the ADA. H.R. 620 offers a common sense fix to the problem of drive-by lawsuits by giving businesses a timeframe in which to fix the alleged infraction. If the business doesn’t fix the issue, a plaintiff can move forward with their lawsuit. This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of attorneys.”

Washington, D.C. – Today, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation to improve the Americans with Disabilities Act. H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, preserves the original intent of the ADA, protects businesses from expensive litigation, and provides education, all while providing a strong incentive for businesses to comply with ADA regulations.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) issued the following statement:

“American business owners should have the resources and education to accommodate all their customers without fear of expensive lawsuits. The ADA Education and Reform Act will improve access for those whom the ADA was designed to help instead of increasing fees for opportunistic attorneys. These reforms will help the law work better for both Americans with disabilities and American business owners. I am pleased with the work that the House Judiciary Committee has done on this important issue, and I applaud my colleague Representative Ted Poe for his leadership.”

Representative Ted Poe (R-Tx.), chief sponsor of the legislation, stated:

“The ADA is a critical law that is designed to make American businesses and facilities more accessible to the disabled. However, the integrity of this important law is being threatened by those who wish to make a quick buck off the backs of others. The vast majority of small businesses in America strive to serve their customers to the best of their ability – relying on the ADA as another tool to help ensure that costumers with disabilities can enjoy the services that they provide. Unfortunately, unscrupulous attorneys prey on small business owners and file unnecessary lawsuits that abuse the spirit and purpose of the ADA. H.R. 620 offers a common sense fix to the problem of drive-by lawsuits by giving businesses a timeframe in which to fix the alleged infraction. If the business doesn’t fix the issue, a plaintiff can move forward with their lawsuit. This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of attorneys.”

Background:

While the ADA is an important piece of legislation that protects those with disabilities, some have taken advantage of the system to file exorbitant lawsuits for monetary gain. Some plaintiffs’ attorneys have even targeted multiple businesses they have never frequented for minor compliance issues and then demanded large fees when compliance could have been achieved faster and cheaper if only fair notice and an opportunity to cure had been given.

The bill alters the public accommodation provisions in Title III of the ADA to remedy this problem. Under this legislation, those who seek action against businesses for ADA compliance issues must first give a written notice. Businesses then have 60 days to respond in writing and 120 days to make necessary changes before being subject to civil action.

H.R. 620 also instructs the Department of Justice to create an education program for state and local governments and property owners regarding ADA compliance.

H.R. 620 is identical to ADA reform legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee in 2016.

There is a new bill in Congress promising to stop people from abusing the American's with Disabilities Act.

Attorneys call them "serial ADA suers" because they often file dozens of lawsuits against businesses for minor violations and then demand thousands of dollars to settle.

Right now, you can sue a business for any type of ADA violation. H.R. 620 won't prevent people from suing, but it will require those people to give the business owner notice to correct the alleged violation before filing a case in court.

"I don't know if the ADA even contemplated these types of lawsuits," Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said.

Lamborn is appalled to hear people are using the Americans with Disabilities Act to make money and it's legal---at least for now!

Melissa Umphenour, Santiago Abreu and Terrell Frederick combined filed nearly 200 ADA-related lawsuits since 2015 in Colorado.

Many of the lawsuits center around issues like "accessible" signs not posted at a proper height or toilet paper dispensers being mounted a few inches too high or low.

"These drive-by lawsuits appear to me to be an abuse of the legal system and if they don't give the business owner notice or time to fix the problem, it sounds like they are just out for the money," Lamborn said.

For example, Frederick sued Panda Express because the front door allegedly took more than 5 pounds of force to open, but he failed to explain how he measured that.

Seven days later, his attorney sent Panda Express a letter telling the restaurant they'll drop the case if they pay a one-time fee of $2,750. The settlement "offer" made no mention of when the alleged violation needed to be fixed.

Panda Express also received no prior notice of the alleged violation until they were served with a lawsuit.

?Congressman Ted Poe believes his bill will curb these types of lawsuits by requiring people to talk with business owners and work together to get violations corrected if they exist.

"The ADA is a vital law that is meant to make American businesses more accessible to the disabled. But the integrity of this important law is being threatened. The vast majority of small businesses in America strive to serve their customers to the best of their ability – relying on the ADA as another tool to help ensure that customers with disabilities can enjoy the services that they provide,” said Congressman Poe. “Most of these business owners believe that they are in compliance with the ADA and have even passed local and state inspections. However, despite their best attempts, certain attorneys and their pool of serial plaintiffs troll for minor, easily correctable ADA infractions so they can file a lawsuit and make some cash. There is a now whole industry made up of people who prey on small business owners and file unnecessary abusive lawsuits that abuse both the ADA and the business owners. This bill will change that by requiring that the business owners have time to fix what is allegedly broken. If they fail to correct the infractions the plaintiff retains all of their rights to pursue legal action. This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of attorneys.”

Lamborn tells News 5 Investigates that he fully supports Poe's efforts to pass this bill.

"I'm going to help push and make Congressman Ted Poe get this bill across the finish line," Lamborn said. "I think it's a great piece of legislation."

You can read more about Congressman Poe's bill here.

Link to article: http://www.koaa.com/story/35155812/new-bill-introduced-to-prevent-people-from-abusing-the-americans-with-disabilities-act

Floor Speech, as delivered by Congressman Ted Poe.

Mr. Speaker, Original Pizza in Broomfield, Colorado, has been in business since the 1990s. Now they are being sued.

The plaintiff claims they do not have ADA-accessible parking signage or proper insulation wrapped around the pipes under the restroom sink. The claims waged against Original Pizza are mostly false.

The sink is compliant, and the parking issue could be fixed with a better sign and a bit of paint. Not to mention, Original Pizza was never notified of the alleged violations by the plaintiff.

Now the plaintiff is demanding money to pay or a lawsuit will be filed. The same plaintiff has filed over 70 other lawsuits against businesses for alleged ADA violations.

Plaintiffs and attorneys hope companies will decide to settle rather than face an expensive court trial. The ADA Education and Reform Act will require giving businesses notice and time to fix the alleged infraction before the lawsuit is filed.

Notice and cure are a fair way to handle ADA violations.

And that is just the way it is.

Floor Speech, as delivered by Congressman Ted Poe.

Mr. Speaker, Weingarten Realty owns several shopping centers in Texas. Recently they were sued by plaintiffs who had never visited the shopping center.

The complaint? Allegedly, nine designated ADA van accessible parking spaces were not dispersed far apart enough.

The plaintiff did not notify Weingarten of the alleged violations before filing the lawsuit, so Weingarten couldn’t comply. The real estate company believes they were in compliance with the ADA.

But often companies like Weingarten decide the best economic decision is to settle the lawsuit rather than an expensive court trial. Businesses are told to either pay a settlement or face an expensive trial.

The bipartisan bill, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, requires plaintiffs to give businesses notice and time to fix the alleged ADA infraction before a lawsuit is filed. Mr. Speaker, the ADA was designed to improve access for the disabled, not allow a handful of greedy plaintiffs who have never been on the premises to use a loophole to extort unsuspecting business owners of money.

And that is just the way it is.

Valley attorneys and business owners are raising questions about the non-profit status of a controversial group that’s become the nation’s most prolific filer of disability lawsuits.

Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities (AID) has filed more than 1,700 lawsuits in the Phoenix area since February.

Almost all of the lawsuits are filed over signage issues in parking lots and allege violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In those lawsuits, AID prominently touted its status as an official 501c3 charitable foundation.

But in its application for non-profit tax-exempt status, an ABC15 investigation found that AID didn’t tell the IRS that it would be filing lawsuits or funding itself through litigation.

“The fact they never told the IRS that they would be filing lawsuits as a primary activity and funding themselves through lawsuit settlements, that’s a really big problem," said attorney Kory Langhofer, a former federal prosecutor whose firm now practices political and non-profit law.

APPLIED AND APPROVED

AID applied for non-profit status in April and was approved in July.

In its application, the organization said it would have four activities: (1) ADA education and awareness program; (2) individuals with disabilities grant program; (3) administrative activities; (4) public relations.

Under a section describing how AID would be funded, it said, “The organization is dependent on the voluntary donations and contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations.”

“It seems clear there were misstatements in here,” Langhofer said. “When they were telling the IRS what they were planning to do with their organization, they didn’t tell the IRS everything they should have.”

It’s not the only issue Langhofer found with AID’s non-profit status.

“It looked to me that what they were doing was suspicious,” he said. “So I wrote them and asked for copies of their tax records. I wanted to see if they are really complying with tax law.”

AID never responded. So Langhofer said he sent a courier to go to multiple addresses for AID to physically inspect their records.

The courier was turned away.

By law, non-profit organizations are required to provide copies of certain tax records and their IRS

application to anyone who asks.

“They completely ignored us and that’s illegal,” said Langhofer, who provided emails to ABC15 documenting his efforts to contact AID.

AID did respond to ABC15’s request and provided its IRS application.

“NOT MY EXPERIENCE”

Business owners sued by AID also question why information about lawsuits was omitted from the IRS application.

“I’m sure I’m not the only person who would find this not to be like a non-profit organization,” said

Steven Fisher, whose business was sued in June. “They are coming at us for one thing, and that’s the money.”

Fisher said defending his business, Doug’s Bugs, against a lawsuit and negotiating with AID has been difficult.

Fisher’s business was hit for signage issues. One marked assessable space was missing a sign. Another spot had a parody sign that read “Not handicapped? Move your @*$%&* car.”

He said that is the unofficial spot for his mother-in-law, who’s disabled and confined to a wheelchair.

After Fisher said he corrected the issues, he had his attorney offer $1,500 to settle. AID didn’t accept, he said.

“They shrugged it off. They were insulted,” Fisher said.

AID RESPONDS

Court records show that AID has collected at least $1.2 million in legal settlements from it's lawsuits. AID officials claim, however, that they are operating at a loss.

AID has said it's also provided assistance and charitable gifts to the community.

It's not clear how much in charity the group has given out. Annual tax records with yearly totals won't be available until next year.

Regarding this story, ABC15 sent detailed questions to AID officials regarding its non-profit status and application.

In response, AID’s “de facto representative” Alex Callan emailed a statement.

The statement said AID actually has two sides: a private business side, Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities, LLC; and a charitable side, Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities Foundation, Inc.

However, the timeline and information in Callan’s statement are inconsistent with previous statements made by AID’s lead attorney, Peter Strojnik, and the group’s own press releases.

AID started using the charitable side to file lawsuits without specific individuals on June 9, 2016, records show. In an interview conducted with ABC15 the previous day, Strojnik said AID had already made the decision to use the charitable side so that all of the money would go into the non-profit.

“Now the foundation is filing lawsuits in its own name. All of it goes to the foundation,” Strojnik said on June 8.

ABC15 also didn’t broadcast or publish any reports about AID until early August. Also, in several AID press releases and court filings, the goal is to “self-fund” the foundation through the recovery of litigation expenses.

In response to this report, AID’s lead attorney Peter Strojnik refused to answer questions and only sent the following email.

Dear Mr. Biscobing:

I previously requested that you not communicate with me or my clients regarding your mendacious reporting. Please make a note of this in your files.

Cordially Yours,

Peter Strojnik

But the use of a business side and charitable side still raises questions, Langhofer said. There are rules and restrictions regarding how non-profits can move money between entities.

“When you send records like this into the IRS, you sign them under the penalty of perjury,” he said.

“It’s very important to be telling the truth in these applications.”

IRS RESOURCES

ABC15 reached out to the IRS for comment. A spokesman sent the following response.

“IRS Code Section 6103 does not allow me to discuss specific taxpayer or entity issues. Period. However, I can provide public information that is available on IRS.gov that you can use as reference material. The following information may be helpful for your viewers.”

IRS Complaint Process - Tax-Exempt Organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/irs-complaint-process-tax-exempt-organizations

Fact Sheet 2008-13 explains the process for communicating alleged exempt organization tax law violations to the IRS and describes how the IRS handles such information. Members of the public may send information that raises questions about an exempt organization's compliance with the Internal Revenue Code to IRS - EO Referrals, 1100 Commerce Street, MC 4910 DAL, Dallas, TX 75242. They may use Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form, for this purpose.

In addition to oversight by the IRS, tax-exempt organizations are subject to oversight by state charity regulators and State tax agencies. You may also want to send a copy of the referral you send to us to your state charity regulator and/or state tax agency.

A controversial “advocacy” group filing huge batches of disability lawsuits has received substantial funding from a Valley entrepreneur with a complicated past, involving personal tragedy and multiple investigations for consumer fraud.

His name is Gregory Crane, and he did not want to be named by ABC15.

The 52-year-old Scottsdale man has provided more than $600,000 and office space to Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities (AID). Crane said he also provides advice to the group.

FULL COVERAGE: “Cash for Compliance?”

AID has filed more than 1,700 lawsuits alleging violations in business parking lots under the American’s with Disabilities Act.

An ABC15 investigation exposed many AID lawsuits are over signage issues. A sign inches too low? AID demands thousands to settle – initial demands often begin at $7,500, court records show.

Crane declined to be interviewed, but he did answer questions through email.

He wrote that he does not “expect” to be paid by AID now or in the future but will take deductions on his tax returns. (Business records show Crane has current and previous business relationships with several AID officials.)

ABC15 also interviewed an attorney with an outside law firm hired by AID about Crane.

“Many years ago, he had some businesses that had some legal troubles,” said attorney John Wilenchik, who’s arguing several legal battles for AID. “Our response to that is he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. His wife died in a plane crash, his child died in a plane crash. He was left disabled.”

PERSONAL TRAGEDY

In August 2010, Crane was flying his personal aircraft when he crashed into a San Diego-area golf course.

The crash killed his wife and son. It also severely injured Crane and his two daughters, according to multiple news reports of the crash.

In an email, Crane said the crash prompted his passion for disability access.

“I wanted to help this group bring about widespread ADA compliance in an effort to make a positive impact in the world,” Crane wrote.

AID’s outside attorney also defended Crane’s involvement with AID.

“His heart is in the right place here,” John Wilenchik said.

However, business owners who have been sued by AID are not convinced that his involvement is completely altruistic.

AID has also been accused of using “trolling litigation tactics” to get quick settlements by the Attorney General’s Office. Other officials have also called AID’s methods a “shake-down.”

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

On his Linked-In page, Greg Crane lists several businesses he's been involved with. He describes himself as an entrepreneur who "enjoys being involved in a good business turn around."

However, ABC15 also discovered some of his companies have been investigated for consumer fraud and deceptive business practices by Attorney Generals in multiple states and federal officials.

In 2000, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against an online yellow page company, where Crane was a top officer.

YP.Net, Inc. was accused of deceiving businesses by using contracts disguised as rebate checks, records show.

Crane, the company’s Director of Operations and a boardmember, was listed as a defendant on the case.

The company mailed out $3.50 checks to many businesses. When business cashed the check, they were automatically enrolled in a yearly subscription costing around $150, records show.

The yellow-page company settled the case without admitting wrongdoing, but officials agreed to change its business practices and give refunds.

In the 1990s, Crane also faced state investigations in at least three states for his document preparation companies.

In Arizona, Crane’s company, “Arizona Residential Real Estate County Recording Service,” was accused of consumer fraud for sending out advertisements that contained “numerous deceptions, misrepresentations, false pretenses, false promises, and they conceal or omit material facts,” court records show.

Crane mailed out official-looking forms that solicited homeowners to send $25 in order to file for something called “homestead protection.” State prosecutors accused Crane of using documents that looked like official state documents.

The Attorney General’s Office brought a civil case against Crane in 1993. Two years later, Crane consented to violating consumer fraud laws and agreed to pay restitution and the state’s legal fees, court records show.

The homestead documents were repeatedly in the news. The Arizona Republic wrote several stories about Crane’s business with the word “scam” included in the headline.

After Arizona’s civil case, Crane continued to mail out homestead solicitations in other states, including Florida and Texas. Both states also opened investigations.

ABC15 also aired an investigation in 1997 that looked into Crane’s document business. (Watch below)

SURPRISING TWIST

In ABC15’s 1997 investigation, a reporter interviewed a real estate attorney about homestead document solicitations. The attorney was Dennis Wilenchik, who is working with his son John in representing AID.

In ABC15’s report, Dennis Wilenchik called homestead document solicitations “the classic definition of fraud.”

ABC15 showed John Wilenchik the video and asked him to respond to his father’s comments about business practices once used by Greg Crane now that their firm is representing AID, which is substantially funded by Crane’s money.

He said that Crane’s funding does not taint AID’s cause.

“Again he who is without sin cast the first stone,” Wilenchik said. “His heart is in the right place here.”

The lead attorney for a controversial “advocacy” group flooding the Valley with disability-access lawsuits is currently facing multiple State Bar investigations and has made a number of mistakes in his cases, a three-month ABC15 investigation has found.

State Bar officials confirmed that Peter Strojnik, attorney for Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities (AID), is under at least two open investigations.

“Two of the defendants became very grumpy after they were sued and found in violation,” Strojnik said. “So what do grumpy people do, they try and intimidate.”

Strojnik has filed more than 1,300 lawsuits against businesses alleging access violations in parking lots under the American with Disabilities Act. In many cases, the alleged violations are for violations like a sign that’s a few inches too low.

Strojnik and AID usually demand $7500 to settle and drop the lawsuits, court records show.

Below is a demand letter Strojnik often sends to businesses after he sends them.

“I felt what they were doing was totally and completely unethical,” said JoAnn Burgess, who owns a building in Phoenix. “So I wrote a letter to the State Bar.”

Burgess rents her building to a coffee shop.

She said the location’s alleged violation was a missing van accessible sign. Rather than fight the lawsuit, Burgess decided to settle because the cost of litigating the case would have exceeded a quick settlement.

“I was pretty ticked off,” she said."

Legal experts said that while the methods used by Strojnik and AID are controversial, it doesn’t mean they are illegal.

The only issue would be if Strojnik, who’s been disciplined by the State Bar previously, has made mistakes. Multiple attorneys, who represent Valley businesses sued by Strojnik, said his cases are filled with a variety of them.

“It has happened time and time again,” said Matt Anderson, an attorney with the firm Jaburg Wilk. “We have clients who have been served with the wrong papers. We have clients who have been sent pictures with the wrong property attached to the complaint.”

ABC15 has reviewed hundreds of AID’s cases and discovered repeated mistakes.

On May 12, Strojnik sued the owner of a Mesa strip mall and then filed another lawsuit less than a month later, alleging the same claims.

An attorney representing the business said it appears Strojnik didn’t realize he had already filed a case.

The second case was voluntarily dismissed in July.

Many businesses rent or own units within buildings but do not legally own or control the parking lots.

Throughout the Valley, joint associations own and control many business parking lots (Think of it like HOAs owning and controlling common areas in neighborhoods).

But Strojnik has filed many of these cases against individual businesses, and some attorneys have said he's doing it intentionally.

On April 19, Strojnik sued multiple Scottsdale businesses near Bell Road and the Loop 101 even though an association owned and controlled the lot.

“The Plaintiffs made an educated decision not to name the Association as a Defendant in the current matter, despite multiple attempts by various counsel to explain the dynamics of a commercial condominium to avoid further frivolous litigation,” wrote attorney Lydia Peirce Linsmeier in a response to a lawsuit.

In a legal letter, Strojnik said that the businesses had “no defenses” to the lawsuits. A judge disagreed and dismissed the cases.

Attorney Matt Anderson said this is one of the most common issues seen in Strojnik’s cases.

In fact, Anderson said he just learned of a case involving 20 businesses that share a building and all received lawsuits even though an association owns and controls the parking lot.

SUING A DIRT LOT

ABC15 also uncovered a lawsuit filed by Strojnik against the owner of a dirt lot in east Mesa.

An attorney representing the business said Strojnik apparently mistook the empty and dusty parcel of land for a neighboring location.

The lawsuit was amended on August 2 to include a new defendant.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Sharon Olsen, who owns Y-Knot Party and Rentals in Mesa, said she was “shocked” when she saw that Peter Strojnik had sued her in May.

“I said, ‘you have to be kidding me,’” Olsen said.

Why?

Strojnik helped Olsen set up her business in 1989. She provided ABC15 with her Articles of Incorporation that show Strojnik was the attorney who prepared and filed the business paperwork.

Olsen said she emailed Strojnik to point out the conflict of interest. She said another AID attorney, Fabian Zazueta, called her back with an offer. They said they would drop the lawsuit if she agreed to talk with their public relations person, Olsen said.

Olsen said she asked Zazueta to put that in writing and never heard back. Instead, Olsen said she made another call – one to the State Bar.

STROJNIK’S PRIOR LEGAL DISCIPLINE

Peter Strojnik has been disciplined by the State Bar three times in his career, records show.

But in an interview with ABC15, Strojnik said he could only recall one instance – a 2011 suspension. “We entered into a friendly agreement that I would take 30 days off,” Strojnik said.

The State Bar suspended Strojnik for 30 days and placed him on probation. Here’s a summary of the 2011 case from the Bar’s website:

“Mr. Strojnik sent a letter to a represented person that had no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden him, and resulted in the filing of a motion to remove Mr. Strojnik as counsel and made it necessary for the court to address the issue. He filed a motion to compel and for sanctions and a complaint for declaratory judgment, both of which were frivolous and prejudicial to the administration of justice. His treatment of deponent during deposition was “insulting and shockingly insensitive.” Finally, Mr. Strojnik advised his client to not attend an IME, but he failed to advise her that she could be sanctioned for not attending. Her failure to attend the IME resulted in the defendant filing a motion to compel, the IME had to be reset, and his client was ordered to pay the costs incurred by the defense counsel.”

PHOENIX - A new self-proclaimed advocacy group -- that’s filed more than 1,000 disability-access lawsuits across the Valley – is using a controversial legal strategy that’s raised a lot of questions from businesses, community leaders, and attorneys.

A three-month ABC15 investigation found not all of the group’s answers add up – literally.

The group is called Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities (AID) and was founded in January.

ABC15 has found discrepancies in several of AID’s statements, including the number of lawsuits filed by its lead plaintiff, the type of businesses it sued, and where the settlement money has gone.

How many lawsuits?

AID has filed lawsuits under multiple entities, making the exact number of cases hard to track. However, ABC15 has found more than 1,000 lawsuits have been filed in Maricopa County since February.

During the first several months of operation, AID’s star plaintiff was a man named David Ritzenthaler.

ABC15 interviewed Ritzenthaler in June.

A reporter asked him the following question: “Do you know how many lawsuits you’ve been involved with - how many your name's been put on?” Ritzenthaler answered, “I believe about 160.”

It wasn’t 160.

It was 530 – all of them filed in a three-month period from mid-February to mid-May. In fact, Ritzenthaler signed and attested to every one of the lawsuits under the penalty of perjury, court records show.

When presented with the true number of lawsuits, Ritzenthaler said he was estimating.

“I think there is 160 that I have become informed of and taken the time to evaluate,” he said.

Ritzenthaler and his attorneys said he has not visited most of the businesses he’s sued. The ADA requires that a person with a disability only has to be informed of a violation before they can sue. Courts have allowed plaintiffs to use this legal standard to file serial lawsuits.

AID has hired people to cruise parking lots across the Valley, using a checklist to identify potential violations.

Who’s getting sued?

AID’s lead attorney, Peter Strojnik, defends the group’s practices and said any criticism is unwarranted.

He said they sue “lawbreakers,” who have been violating ADA laws since it was passed 26 years ago. Strojnik called AID’s methods good, proper and ethical.

To prove his point, Strojnik repeatedly said AID doesn’t sue mom-and-pop businesses. But there are many businesses owners who said that’s untrue.

“That’s a total false statement,” said Lesa Crisman.

Crisman runs a small children’s clothing and accessory store with the help of her own mother, who has a disability, she said.

Crisman said she knows of a handful of other mom-and-pop businesses that have been sued down her street. She said she only found out a lawsuit had been filed when a process-server walked into her store and dropped it off at her front desk.

Stretched for cash, Crisman decided to make her own stencil and repaint her disabled access space herself. She also fixed other issues involving the parking signs in her lot.

She doesn’t know how she’ll pay the several-thousand dollar settlement AID has demanded.

“I don’t have the money,” Crisman said. “A lot of (us) are just scraping by.”

ABC15 challenged Strojnik about his claim that AID didn’t sue mom-and-pop businesses. During the interview, a reporter and the attorney had the following exchange:

Reporter: “You are suing mom and pop shops.” Strojnik: “Well let me talk about, uh, no I’m not suing mom and pop shops.” Reporter: “I’ve seen the cases.” Strojnik: “Timeout.” Reporter: “You certainly are.” Strojnik: “Timeout, counselor.”

ABC15 has learned settlements often range from $3,000 to $7,000. Some businesses said settlement demands have reached $15,000.

Where’s the settlement money going?

Under ADA law, plaintiffs typically aren’t allowed to collect damages and are only awarded money to cover attorney fees.

AID attorney Peter Strojnik told ABC15 he doesn’t take any settlement money from the cases – not for fees, filing costs, anything.

“See how many? Zero,” said Strojnik, while forming a circle with his fingers.

Strojnik said he donates all of his time and money to AID and denied that he gets any other compensation in any other way.

At first, his client, David Ritzenthaler, told us he doesn’t get anything either. “I get not a cent,” he said. But that’s something that directly contradicted what his attorney told ABC15.

Strojnik said he paid Ritzenthaler either $75 or $100 a case. ABC15 questioned Ritzenthaler about the discrepancy during an interview.

Reporter: “You don’t get any money for this?” Ritzenthaler: “I get not a cent.” Reporter: “How come your lawyer says he gives you money?” Ritzenthaler: “They do not give me money.” Reporter: “So does he not know what’s going on?” Ritzenthaler: “I don’t know. You’d have to ask him that.” Reporter: “I did. He said that he gives you about $75 to $100 a case. Is that true?” Ritzenthaler: “No. Because when that was a decision that they made, after I was already volunteering, I said I don’t want any money for it. So I designated a 501(c)3. Like I said, I’m in the business of helping people, I have never received any money.” Reporter: “What’s that 501(c)3?” Ritzenthaler: “That’s Total Life Ministries. And that’s where it’s going.” Reporter: “So why didn’t you tell me that’s where it was going before?” Ritzenthaler: “Because I didn’t know how technical of questions you were going to ask me.”

A 501(c)3 organization is a tax-exempt non-profit entity that must make financial information available to the public upon request.

Ritzenthaler, a self-appointed minister, is president and CEO of Total Life Ministries, which was created more than a decade ago. After the interview, he did not respond to messages sent to the email address for Total Life Ministries seeking current tax records. But ABC15 obtained a copy of the non-profit’s 2014 tax forms.

The records show Ritzenthaler can pay himself the money from Total Life Ministries and has paid himself a salary in the past. In 2014, he paid himself $36,000 in “reportable compensation” and $66,000 in “other compensation.”

When a reporter asked Ritzenthaler about the non-profit and the ability to pay himself, he responded by saying, “You have things a little screwed up.”

More questions about AID’s plaintiff

When ABC15 first arrived at Ritzenthaler’s home to interview him about AID’s lawsuits, he said he couldn’t get up to greet the crew.

It’s something he repeated during the interview.

“Obviously, I didn’t get up to greet you,” said Ritzenthaler, with a cane positioned at his side. “It’s not easy getting up and out of my chair.”

Ritzenthaler said he had a hip surgery in August 2015. When asked how he gets around, he said he “hopes it’s with a cane.” On bad days, he’s “in a wheelchair.”

ABC15 went undercover four times – over a two-month period -- and never witnessed Ritzenthaler use a cane or a wheelchair, including the day of the sit-down interview when he said he wouldn’t get up to greet the news crew.

A reporter caught up with Ritzenthaler walking to his SUV a few weeks after the sit-down interview. Ritzenthaler was asked how long he’s been walking without a cane.

“When I get a chance, if it’s a few feet,” said Ritzenthaler. He then said he carries a cane in the backseat of his vehicle, but not that day.

Even though he was parked in a disabled access spot, Ritizenthaler didn’t appear to have a disability placard or disability license plate. In fact, it appeared he didn’t have any license plate on the vehicle.

Ritzenthaler and his attorneys said he is physically disabled under the law. Questions about his disability are “morally repugnant.”

They call themselves Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities - AID for short.

On its website, videos show AID giving out things like a special therapeutic brace, a scooter, and a window air conditioning unit.

That’s not controversial.

But what is controversial is how AID makes money. In the past six months, AID has filed more than 1,000 cases alleging disability access violations in the parking lots of Valley businesses.

The Americans with Disability Act requires certain buildings, businesses and commercial facilities to have a certain amount of accessible parking spots, the correct space between spots, and proper signage at a specific height.

But if businesses are even slightly out of compliance -- a sign just an inch or two low – AID has sued and demanded thousands to settle the case.

AID officials claim their work is advocacy.

But businesses, lawmakers, and other advocacy groups say what they’re doing is an abuse of the system, a form of extortion, and harming the disability community.

Who is AID?

On AID’s website, the group calls itself “civil rights champions.”

AID was originally formed in January under the name Advocates for American Disabled Individuals. However, the group changed its name months later after discovering their name could be considered offensive (Here’s why ).

AID officials also said their organization is a charity. It filed for non-profit status with the IRS earlier this year and said it was approved in July.

AID has filed lawsuits under multiple entities, making the exact number of cases hard to track. However, ABC15 has found more than 1,000 lawsuits have been filed in Maricopa County since February.

For the first several months of operation, AID’s star plaintiff was a man named David Ritzenthaler.

“As disabled people we don’t have a voice,” said Ritzenthaler, during an interview at his home.

Ritzenthaler , 74, said he had hip surgery last August. He’s also a self-proclaimed minister and considers his lawsuits for AID a public service.

“I love what (they’re) doing,” he said.

Ritzenthaler has filed 530 lawsuits on behalf of AID against businesses in Maricopa County, court records show.

Has he been to all of those businesses? No.

AID’s lead attorney, Peter Strojnik, said that’s not a requirement. The ADA requires that a person with a disability only has to be informed of a violation before they can sue. Courts have allowed plaintiffs to use this legal standard to file serial lawsuits.

AID has hired people to cruise parking lots across the Valley, using a checklist to identify potential violations.

All of the lawsuits are nearly identical except for the business name and address. The complaints make general allegations, and hundreds of cases reviewed by ABC15 show that specific violations aren’t listed.

“They’re copy and paste jobs,” said attorney Lindsay Leavitt, who represents nearly 150 businesses that have been sued. “It’s just a conveyor belt of lawsuits.”

Serial ADA plaintiffs have popped in states across the country, often filing a few dozen cases and then moving on.

But AID is applying the method at an unprecedented rate, and Strojnik said they plan to file 100,000 lawsuits across the country.

AID is also trying something that legal experts said is new.

Their plaintiff, David Ritzenthaler, stopped putting his name on lawsuits in mid-May. (He said he’s now serving as a director for the group). Instead, AID is now suing on behalf of itself without a person listed as a plaintiff.

“This is so new. It’s never been done,” Strojnik said. “And we intend to see it through.”

Money or compliance?

AID believes that any violation is discrimination.

When asked if a missing van notice or a sign that’s just a few inches too low is worth a lawsuit, attorney Peter Strojnik responded, “Oh yes.”

Strojnik said AID is trying to affect a change that hasn’t occurred since the ADA was passed. But businesses that have been sued consider the lawsuits “shakedowns” and “extortion.”

Bob Curtis, who owns an auto parts and repair show in Mesa, was sued and has hired a lawyer to defend his case.

His violation? “I didn’t have a van accessible sign,” he said. For missing the small sign, Curtis said AID demanded $5,000 to settle.

“A $50 sign for $5,000,” he said. “I think its extortion.”

Business attorney Lindsay Leavitt, who is not representing Curtis, said AID appears to have a goal of reaching quick settlements.

“Oftentimes, it’s just cheaper and more cost efficient to settle a case then to prove you are right in court,” Leavitt said.

ABC15 has learned settlements often range from $3,000 to $7,000. If multiplied by hundreds – and soon to be thousands – of cases, the lawsuits add up to millions of dollars.

But AID said it’s not about money. It’s about compliance. In fact, AID officials have repeatedly accused attorneys hired by business as the ones who are “lining their pockets.” A spokesperson also criticized businesses that hired lawyers

Small Colorado businesses are just trying to make ends meet, but dozens of them are getting hit hard by a new wave of lawsuits claiming they discriminate against people with disabilities. The Denver7 Investigates team learned some of the alleged violations are bogus and that the lawsuits appear to be connected to a lawsuit-filing machine across the Southwest United States.

BROOMFIELD, Colo. -- So many people are just trying to make ends meet. Now, people who call themselves disability advocates have filed a new wave of lawsuits across the Denver metro demanding settlements and claiming businesses are inaccessible to people with disabilities.

The Denver7 Investigates team has been exposing concerns over those types of cases for months. One case in Bailey, Colorado forced a man to shut down his restaurant indefinitely.

In this latest round of litigation, a woman from Arvada has filed nearly 70 cases in less than two months. There's evidence to show the complaints are connected to a lawsuit-filing machine across the Southwest United States.

Actual mom-and-pop businesses appear to be the prime targets and can suffer the greatest financial consequences of the litigation.

"I feel that it's a shame that people are using the legal system in a negative way in what seems is a scam for the working class, to take advantage of the working class," restaurant owner Carmela Aiello said. She and her husband, Raffaele, have owned and operated Original Pizza in Broomfield since the early 1990s.

"It's hard, you know," she said. "We're hanging in there. We're not getting rich. We work every day."

If you were to believe the tenor and tone of the lawsuit that hit them last month, you'd think they could not care less about their customers who have disabilities.

"Nobody has ever complained about anything and if anybody would have come in and said something to us upfront, I think we would have taken care of it, we would have approached it the right way. This is all mind-blowing," Aiello said.

A woman named Mellisa Umphenour claims the pizzeria discriminates against her child who has disabilities. In short, she said the business is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because it does not have accessible parking, proper accessible parking signage, and does not have proper insulation wrapped around the pipes under the restroom sink.

The trouble with the claims waged against Original Pizza is that one of them is false.

"This is compliant with the ADA," Mark Douglass, an accessibility specialist hired by the Aiello's pro bono attorney, said of the restroom sink insulation that's been in place for a long time. Douglass said he has disabilities which required him to use a wheelchair for years.

As for the accessible parking claims, he said the pizzeria could improve it with a better sign and some fresh paint. But he says none of that would come close to costing the $2,750 Umphenour and her attorney have asked the Aiello family to pay "for costs, fees and expenses" apparently incurred so far.

"This amount is as of today and if any motions practice, or other legal work is required then the amount to settle the case could be significantly higher," the attorney's office said in an email to the Aiello family.

Douglass said he's been poking even larger holes in several of Umphenour's other cases. In one case, he said more than half of the supposed compliance violations are false.

In another case, filed against a burrito restaurant, Umphenour and her attorney are also seeking $2,750.

"It's infuriating," he said. "I can't express how angry it makes me feel."

After Denver7 approached Umphenour, her attorney asked the court to seal some of her new cases. He did not want them to be subject to public inspection.

"Without restriction, Plaintiff, her family, a minor child, and potentially others could be in danger of retaliation, identification, and loss of their right to privacy," a court motion said, in part. "Retaliation by interested as well as unnamed parties is a real and present threat to all individuals who file a claim seeking enforcement civil rights statutes. This interest is so clearly known that the Americans with Disabilities Act devotes several sections to the prohibition of retaliation of claims arising under the Act."

At least two U.S. District Court judges in Denver denied the requests on multiple cases.

Denver7 Investigates learned Umphenour's cases are largely carbon copies of one another and cases recently filed by other plaintiffs in New Mexico and Nevada.

There's also evidence to show the cases are tied to websites, such as ADAJustice.com and NewMexicoADA.com, which have digital signatures that link back to people associated with a group called Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities (AID) based in Arizona.

AID has filed nearly 2,000 ADA cases in Arizona alone.

Coincidentally, the group posted jobs for civil rights advocates and ADA attorneys in Denver, Albuquerque and Las Vegas, Nevada just a few months before this wave of litigation hit the three states.

Denver7's sister station, ABC15 in Phoenix, has been asking tough questions of AID for months, which prompted the Arizona Attorney General to get directly involved to try to limit AID's cases.

"Most business owners, their job is to run their business," accessibility specialist Douglass said. "Their job is to make a good pizza. Their job is to, you know, take care of their customers as best they can. They can't know everything about the ADA."

He said municipalities and businesses need more of an ADA education to protect themselves from getting sued. He also said they deserve a grace period, of sorts, to fix any ADA compliance issues before the claims end up in front of a judge.

For now, that's exactly where the Aiello family will be.

"I refuse to pay the money," Carmela Aiello said. "I will fight for this, and I will see them in court. "I want to stand up for what's right and I think this is wrong and -- somebody's got to stop this because they'll keep doing it to everybody else."

Republican U.S. Representative Ted Poe, whose district includes some of the northern suburbs of Houston, recently reintroduced legislation that would institute a grace period before an ADA lawsuit could be filed.

The bill, H.R. 620, already has several cosponsors from both political parties.

If passed, people who want to file ADA lawsuits like the ones in question would have to write a demand letter to a business first. They could file a lawsuit only if the business fails to respond in writing within 60 days. If the business responds, it would have 120 days to fix to compliance issues or, at the very least, show substantial progress.

Floor Remarks, as delivered by Congressman Ted Poe

Mr. Speaker, Thidwick Books is a small, 865-squarefoot bookshop that has been in the same building since 1999, but now it is being forced to either close its doors forever or move away. Serial plaintiff Craig Yates has sued multiple other merchants, including Thidwick Books.

He generally makes vague claims about the designs of retail stores and claims that they violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. These small businesses do not have the resources to contest unfounded lawsuits or, in many cases, even know what the alleged violations are.

The businesses are told to either pay a settlement or get sued with further litigation. Oftentimes, small businesses choose to pay the extortion rather than to defend the expensive, unfounded drive-by lawsuit.

The bipartisan bill, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, improves access to public accommodations for the disability community while preventing well-meaning business owners from falling victim to drive-by lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, the ADA was designed to improve access for the disabled, not to enrich unscrupulous lawyers and the plaintiffs.

And that is just the way it is.

Imagine you're a small business, and one day you are sued because a posted handicapped parking sign in your parking lot is only 59 inches off the ground, and not 60.

You can spend tens of thousands of dollars to fight the suit over several months, or, you can settle for less. It may sound ridiculous, but the law is the law. And for some, it's an opportunity to collect some cash.

Last year an advocacy group in Phoenix filed over 1,000 lawsuits against businesses for violating requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA. In many instances, the plaintiffs demanded thousands of dollars for a settlement over the slightest of technicalities, many of which could be remedied quickly. But remedy was seldom an option. According to TV station ABC-15, which broke this particular story, the charity was assisted by a handicapped individual who acted as the plaintiff on most of the suits, even though the person had not physically been to a number of the properties that were eventually sued.

In Florida, an investigative reporting team discovered a man who had filed over 1,000 ADA lawsuits, one of them even alleging that a business had a toilet paper dispenser that wasn't the right height.

Stories similar to this have sprouted up across the country, and lawmakers have taken notice.

Republican Congressman Ted Poe from Texas is the point man for bipartisan legislation he hopes will reinvigorate the original spirit of the ADA while tamping down on the spigot of dollars flowing from frivolous or predatory lawsuits that can also be a drain on courts. Poe's legislation primarily aims for small businesses to be notified of any deficiencies in their ADA compliance and then have a cure period to fix the violation. The business can only be sued after the notice and cure period have passed.

"The whole purpose of the bill, if there's a problem with the ADA at this particular business, is to fix the problem! But the trolls don't care about fixing the problem, they care about getting the money, which really doesn't even fix the problem!" Poe said.

Three Democratic representatives from California are co-sponsors of the bill. Last year, Governor Jerry Brown signed state legislation that would also give businesses a grace period to fix deficiencies with the ADA, especially those deficiencies related to signage.

Other states have tried to limit the so-called "drive-by lawsuits." Minnesota recently passed a law intended to increase accessibility for disabled individuals while at the same time reducing lawsuits.

Poe had a nearly identical bill in the house in 2016 that advanced, but the clock ran out. This year, he says he's already heard positive indications from members of the judiciary committee that his reintroduced bill should get quick approval to move to the house floor.

"The challenge is to let folks understand that this is an improvement of the ADA, this is not a bill that limits the ADA," Poe said.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Congressman Ted Poe (TX-02) along with Reps. Peters (D-CA), Bera (D-CA), Calvert (R-CA), Speier (D-CA) and Conaway (R-TX) introduced H.R. 620, The bipartisan ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017. This legislation will curb frivolous lawsuits filed by cash-hungry attorneys and plaintiffs that abuse the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

“The ADA is a vital law that is meant to make American businesses more accessible to the disabled. But the integrity of this important law is being threatened. The vast majority of small businesses in America strive to serve their customers to the best of their ability – relying on the ADA as another tool to help ensure that costumers with disabilities can enjoy the services that they provide,” said Congressman Poe. “Most of these business owners believe that they are in compliance with the ADA and have even passed local and state inspections. However, despite their best attempts, certain attorneys and their pool of serial plaintiffs troll for minor, easily correctable ADA infractions so they can file a lawsuit and make some cash. There is a now whole industry made up of people who prey on small business owners and file unnecessary abusive lawsuits that abuse both the ADA and the business owners. This bill will change that by requiring that the business owners have time to fix what is allegedly broken. If they fail to correct the infractions the plaintiff retains all of their rights to pursue legal action. This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of attorneys.”

"The goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act is to provide access for the disabled – it’s not to give unscrupulous trial lawyers the opportunity to abuse small businesses,” said Rep. Calvert. “California has become ground zero for abusive ADA lawsuits and I have heard from many of our job creators who have fallen victim to abusive ADA lawsuits that are not aimed at improving access for the disabled. Protecting small businesses from abusive lawsuits and ensuring disabled Americans have adequate access are not mutually exclusive goals.”

"The Americans with Disabilities Act created a necessary and commonsense framework to help remove barriers and ensure every American has access to public and private spaces," said Rep. Peters. "However, unlike other federal laws, when businesses are out of compliance with ADA rules, there is no grace period for them to fix problems with their properties. As a result, well-intentioned small business owners are targeted with predatory lawsuits that don't allow them to make changes to their stores or workspaces before they get buried with legal fees. This bipartisan bill gives businesses time to make necessary changes before they are subject to litigation. By reducing the burden on well-intentioned small business owners, we can focus on holding bad actors accountable and small business owners can spend money improving access instead of on legal fees."

“The Americans with Disabilities Act has made tremendous progress in increasing accessibility. Like so many good things, however, bad actors are taking advantage of ADA by filing frivolous lawsuits that have disastrous unintended consequences on local, small businesses,” said Congressman Mike Conway. “Predatory attorneys who often times don’t even live in the same state are using Google Earth to find minor ADA violations, and slapping devastating lawsuits on local small businesses who thought they were in compliance with the law without giving them an opportunity to fix the infraction. This practice helps no one but lawyers looking to make a quick buck, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation becomes law.”

Supporting Groups

American Hotel and Lodging Association, American Resort Development Association, Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International, CCIM Institute, Institute of Real Estate Management, International Council of Shopping Centers, International Franchise Association, NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, National Apartment Association, National Association of REALTORS®, National Association of Theatre Owners, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Federation of Independent Business, National Multifamily Housing Council, National Restaurant Association, NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truck Stops, Retail Industry Leaders Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Company Type: Shopping Center Owner/Developer (National)

San Diego, CA

Our real estate company, a REIT that owns multiple properties throughout the United States, has been invited to share its experience with litigation arising out of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). While our company fully supports the ADA and believes in providing equal access to shopping centers and retailers nationwide, it appears that an unintended consequence of the ADA has been the excessive filing of “nuisance lawsuits” where a minor or incidental infraction results in time consuming and expensive litigation driven by plaintiff’s attorneys intent on collecting attorney’s fees.

One specific example of such a “nuisance lawsuit” was one in which our company was sued by a plaintiff who alleged ADA violations at over 15 of our properties (located in several different states); yet, the plaintiff had only actually visited a single property. The complaint reveals that, after visiting a single property, plaintiff had “investigators” examine all of our other properties on plaintiff’s behalf. We fear that the plaintiff’s law firm may have done nothing more than search public records to find other properties we own within a geographic area in order to increase its leverage for purposes of obtaining a larger settlement.

This suit, in our view, is representative of the types of litigation resulting from the ADA where opportunistic plaintiffs’ counsel file broad suits and claims on behalf of “investigators” who haven’t actually been harmed. It does not appear that such is the intent of the ADA.

As previously stated, our company fully supports the provision of equal access to shopping centers and retailers to all individuals nationwide. To that end, our company is in favor of continued discussions regarding how those results can be achieved without the proliferation of “nuisance lawsuits” that don’t fully support the intent and purpose of the ADA.

West Lake Hills, TX

Approximately 7 years ago, while I was representing (as legal counsel) several downtown Austin businesses who were renovating old historic buildings along the same street, soon after the businesses were open they were all sued by a local attorney who headed up a “legal aid” type office for violations of ADA. These businesses were all located on a street that had elevated sidewalks with admittedly difficult access to the street level and had multiple sets of stairs from street level up to the sidewalk and into the businesses (bar, coffee house and restaurant). All business on this street do have “flat” access from the alley BEHIND the businesses.

Anyways, despite each business installing the various ADA items, including lifts, etc., the lawyer would not settle the claims until his “fee” ($5000) for each business was paid. To my knowledge after lawyer received his fee, no one ever came by to inspect to see if the ADA issues were resolved.

The same group of 3 wheelchair bound “plaintiffs” who admitted they never patronized any of these businesses later in media said they rolled around town looking for violations to take to the lawyer.

Interestingly, last month I saw a news story about similar drive by lawsuits where the plaintiffs later said if they knew the shake down process they would never have participated, and that they never received their share of the “damages” from the lawyers. I think it was a Denver based TV station story. Also the story talked about the thousands of businesses being hit by these cases, especially in situations similar to ours (older sections of town with older buildings). Apparently in Cal there is no defense or grandfathering? And statutory fines that go to the lawyers.

Company Type: Real Estate Private Equity (Regional)

Oklahoma City, OK

We are a private equity company incorporated in over 40 years ago Oklahoma. Since its founding, our strategy has been to maximize value in commercial real estate by providing high-quality management, leasing, and facilities maintenance. We is a hands-on property owner whose principals personally direct day-to-day operations with the goal of ensuring a positive experience for its tenants and members of the public.

In March of 2016, we were served with a lawsuit alleging a number of ADA violations at a shopping center in Florida. The plaintiff had positioned herself as a “tester” for ADA compliance, filing up to 20 lawsuits in a day. In 2015, the plaintiff filed 173 lawsuits related to ADA compliance, with more than 270 similar suits filed in total.

The complaint against us claimed that handicapped parking spaces were excessively sloped and that restrooms in several restaurants within the center were non-compliant due to improperly located amenities, improper door hardware and various other minor ADA violations within tenant-controlled spaces.

At present, the ADA does not provide for a curative period in which a landlord or tenant may correct violations of the law before a suit is filed. Neither the tenants named as defendants nor the property manager were informed of any violation; instead, the plaintiff immediately filed suit with no notice to us until it was served at our headquarters.

Ultimately, we agreed to a settlement which included minor repairs such as lowering soap dispensers and mirrors and replacing insulation around sink drain pipes. The total cost of repairs was less than $1,000; however, we and our tenants were required to reimburse the plaintiff more than $10,000 in legal fees.

A similar 2013 lawsuit relating to a shopping center in Oklahoma City, OK resulted in our incurring more than $40,000 in costs to defend itself – in addition to Plaintiff’s legal fees - the majority of which were paid to attorneys, expert witnesses and architectural consultants.

Frivolous lawsuits such as these do not further the interests of disabled people who seek the access to public spaces and accommodations to which they are entitled. Instead, they delay practical accommodations through lengthy litigation, and serve only to enrich unscrupulous attorneys through abuse of legal process. Revision of the ADA to allow for a curative period before the filing of a lawsuit will lower the cost of doing business for tenants and landlords, and will allow handicapped persons the quick and complete access to public spaces they deserve.

Dear Representatives Poe, Peters, Calvert, Speier, Conaway, and Bera,

On behalf of the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), I express my strong support for H.R. 620, “The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017.” Thank you for your leadership on this bipartisan and narrowly tailored legislation that will ensure that the intent of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not only preserved, but enhanced.

ICSC members take pride in ensuring that retail properties are open and accessible to all. This critical legislation will provide improved access to public accommodations for the disability community while simultaneously preventing well-meaning business owners from falling victim to “drive-by” lawsuits – the practice of identifying technical, easily correctable violations to extract a settlement consisting principally of attorneys’ fees.

By taking away incentives for legal fees and first providing property owners with the opportunity to correct alleged, sometimes minor ADA infractions, Congress will help ensure that resources are focused on improving access and facilities. Often without the resources to contest the suit or even verify the standing of the complainant, thousands of businesses are left paying significant settlements consisting mainly of attorney’s fees. Once the litigating party gets its payout, it moves on to the next property.

H.R.620, The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, will ensure that resources are focused on improving access while protecting business from abusive lawsuits. Thank you for your leadership and we look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

Betsy Laird

Senior Vice President, Global Public Policy

International Council of Shopping Centers

Dear Representatives Poe, Peters, Calvert, Speier, Conaway, and Bera,

On behalf of the undersigned trade associations, we applaud your introduction of H.R. 620, “The ADA Education and Reform Act.” We thank you and your colleagues for your quick and thoughtful re-introduction of this important legislation in the 115th Congress.

Our associations and our members strongly support the intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its goal to ensure that all Americans have equal access and opportunities. Business and property owners are committed to creating a safe, welcoming environment for everyone and acknowledge the significant impact the ADA has made in achieving that goal.

Legislation is needed to ensure that resources are focused on improving access and compliance with the law while protecting business from abusive lawsuits. Unfortunately, the ADA is being undermined by a growing “cottage industry” made up of attorneys and plaintiffs who file lawsuits against business and property owners over alleged violations. The current system creates confusion amongst business and property owners who reasonably believed their property was ADA compliant – typically based on assurances by state and local inspectors. Oftentimes, business owners find it is less expensive to settle the suits than to defend them, even if the property owner is compliant. This bill will change that by requiring that business owners have time to fix what is allegedly broken.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to continuing our work together to protect businesses while honoring the spirit of the ADA.

Sincerely,

American Hotel and Lodging Association

American Resort Development Association

Asian American Hotel Owners Association

Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International

CCIM Institute

Institute of Real Estate Management

International Council of Shopping Centers

International Franchise Association

NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association

National Apartment Association

National Association of REALTORS®

National Association of Theatre Owners

National Council of Chain Restaurants

National Federation of Independent Business

National Multifamily Housing Council

National Restaurant Association

NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truck Stops

Retail Industry Leaders Association

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Thousands of lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but many business owners say they're nothing more than a shakedown

The following is a script from “Drive-by Lawsuits,” which aired on Dec. 4, 2016. Anderson Cooper is the correspondent. Katherine Davis and Sam Hornblower, producers.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has helped improve the lives of tens of millions of people. It’s lessened discrimination against them and made everyday life more accessible. Because of the law, every business that serves the public -- all 7 million of them in America -- has to make sure disabled customers have equal access, and if businesses don’t comply, they can be sued without warning.

You might think you have to be a customer of a business to file a lawsuit against it, but in some states you don’t. You can simply drive by a store or restaurant, and if you see a sign in the wrong spot, or a ramp that’s off by a few inches, you can sue. They are called drive-by lawsuits, and some lawyers are filing hundreds of them against businesses that often have no idea they have done anything wrong.

Anderson Cooper, left, and attorney Nolan Klein outside a convenience store in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

At first glance, this convenience store in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, may appear to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is a parking space for the disabled, and an access ramp to the store. But the Americans with Disabilities Act has thousands of very technical regulations, and this store is in violation.

Nolan Klein in parking lot: What we see here are really sort of the typical red flags that attract lawsuits.

Anderson Cooper: So, I mean, there’s a parking space here.

Nolan Klein: There is a space. It’s not the right dimensions. It needs to be a van space. That means this has to be 8 feet, this has to be 5 feet.

Attorney Nolan Klein says that disabled parking sign is also in the wrong spot – and it doesn’t say the words “van accessible.” That access ramp isn’t right either.

Anderson Cooper: What’s wrong with it?

Nolan Klein: Under the law, this is not an access ramp. So this has to be on an accessible route, which is sort of the area that they tried to create there, but this is supposed to be 5 feet long.

Mike Zayed, who has owned the store for 18 years, says no disabled customer had ever complained about the ramp, the sign, or the parking space, but that didn’t stop him from having to hire attorney Nolan Klein when he got sued.

Anderson Cooper inside store: The person who sued you, you don’t believe they were actually a customer in the store?

Mike Zayed: No, no.

Anderson Cooper: You think they just drove by or stopped outside?

Mike Zayed: That’s what I believe. The lawyer he was just driving around.

That’s why it’s called a “drive by lawsuit.” When a lawyer or a disabled person notices violations outside a business and files suit. Mike Zayed doesn’t think the person who sued him was a real customer because the man claimed he encountered barriers inside the store that didn’t exist.

Store owner Mike Zayed, right, speaks with Anderson Cooper and attorney Nolan Klein.

Mike Zayed: To me, I feel its not fair. Because to me, I feel like that’s stealing. We work hard for our money and these people just driving around in their car, here you go, this violation here, and there.

Anderson Cooper: Do you know other storeowners who have been sued?

Mike Zayed – I have 2 guys I know in Broward, they get sued twice.

Anderson Cooper: Same lawyer?

Mike Zayed: Same lawyer, same guy.

If you think drive by lawsuits – hatched from the comfort of a car – are a novel way to enforce a law, there’s another kind of lawsuit that requires less work…lawyers call them “Google lawsuits.”

Anderson Cooper: What’s a Google lawsuit?

Nolan Klein: A Google lawsuit is where the suspicion, at least, is that the property was spotted on Google, Google Earth, Google Maps, whatever the case may be, and you could see certain things from Google. You could see if there’s a pool lift or not.

A pool lift is a seat that can help disabled people get in and out of the water. Since 2012, all hotels and motels in America are required to be accessible to the disabled, which, in most cases, means having a lift permanently attached to the side of their pool.

This is what a pool lift looks like from Google Earth. In the comfort of your own home, with a few clicks of a mouse, you can see if a pool near you has one, and if they don’t appear to have a pool lift, like many of these hotel pools we looked up, you can file a lawsuit…just like that.

Anderson Cooper interviews Perry Pustam, left, who runs the Adobe Hacienda Motel in Hollywood, Florida.

Perry Pustam runs the Adobe Hacienda Motel in Hollywood, Florida. He has a pool lift now, but says he didn’t know he was required to install one until he got sued in what he suspects was a Google lawsuit.

Anderson Cooper: Did a disabled person actually come here…

Perry Pustam: No.

Anderson Cooper: …and want to use the pool?

Perry Pustam: At no point in time we ever had a customer on the property that requested it or that was even in a room that requested it.

It turns out the same man who sued him sued dozens of other motel owners as well, all for pool lift violations.

Perry Pustam: It was about 60 something lawsuits in 50 something days.

Anderson Cooper: 60 lawsuits in 50 days?

Perry Pustam: 60 plus, yes, in less than 57 days.

Anderson Cooper: All from the same attorney?

Perry Pustam: Same attorney using the same client.

At last count, that attorney has sued nearly 600 businesses in just the last two years, many for not having pool lifts. Perry Pustam ended up paying $3,000 to buy a lift, that so far, no one has ever used. He also spent thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. He told us he believes these lawsuits are sometimes simply a money-making venture for lawyers because under federal law, business owners have to pay both sets of attorney’s fees, and if you don’t settle, it can end up costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars in court.

Perry Pustam: It’s a game for these attorneys. Basically that’s what it is.

Every private business in America that’s open to the public, millions of shops, restaurants, movie theatres, grocery stores, laundromats, nail salons , and more, have to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. But business owners we spoke to say it’s almost impossible to be totally compliant with the law because the requirements are very specific – and there are thousands of them. You can find them in this 275-page manual that details everything from the exact height of a mirror in a bathroom, to the maximum thickness of carpeting, to the angle at which water can come out of a drinking fountain. Every doorway, every door handle, every surface you walk on, every light switch, outlet, counter – you name it – are all covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was first passed in 1990. In theory, businesses only need to comply if it’s readily achievable to do so, but in reality, if you’re not meeting every single requirement, you can be sued without warning.

Anderson Cooper: Essentially, you’re saying that after 25 years there really is no excuse for any business not to be compliant?

John Wodatch: Well, people who say that they need a grace period. I would say 25 years is a grace period enough.

John Wodatch is the retired chief of the Department of Justice’s disability rights section and was part of the team that wrote the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Anderson Cooper: Is the law, as its written, too specific, that a mirror has to be 40 inches off the ground as opposed to 39 or 41?

John Wodatch: My first answer is no, it’s not. I think the specificity is needed. Because I think inches matter. If you have a lip on a curb ramp – a wheelchair user is likely to tumble into the street and injure him or herself.

Wodatch points out the number of disability access lawsuits is small compared to the tens of millions of Americans who have some form of disability.

Anderson Cooper: Are some people taking advantage of the law?

John Wodatch: I think some people are-- there are some people who are engaging in what I think people have called shakedowns or frivolous lawsuits, where they are not really looking at significant change for people with disabilities, they’re looking to use the law to make some money.

Attorney Tom Frankovich

When the Americans with Disabilities Act was being written, the Department of Justice was concerned about people taking advantage of this part of the law. They intentionally did not include monetary damages for plaintiffs in federal lawsuits. The problem is now many states do provide for damages, and John Wodatch says, that has led to abuse, most notably in California, where, with limited exceptions, business owners have to pay not only lawyers fees and remodeling costs, but also a minimum of $4,000 in damages each time a disabled customer visits a business with a violation. That can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases. Attorney Tom Frankovich is one of the top filers of disability access lawsuits in California.

Anderson Cooper: businesses here hate you

Tom Frankovich: Well I would say that.

Anderson Cooper: How many lawsuits have you filed?

Tom Frankovich: 2000, 2500. I mean, I don’t really keep track.

Anderson Cooper: Do you know how much you’ve made in the 2000 cases you’ve filed?

Tom Frankovich: Oh, I wouldn’t dare to say.

Anderson Cooper: Millions?

Tom Frankovich: Yeah I would say that.

Anderson Cooper: Couple million?

Tom Frankovich: Could be.

Anderson Cooper: Is it fair to say you’re scaring people to comply with the law?

Tom Frankovich: I hope.

Anderson Cooper: You hope?

Tom Frankovich: I hope.

Anderson Cooper: So when people call you an extortionist, when people call you a shakedown artist,

you say what?

Tom Frankovich: I’m acting as a private attorney general. And I’m enforcing a law that precludes discrimination by you against people with disabilities.

Anderson Cooper: When you’re filing hundreds of lawsuits for one client – is that fair?

Tom Frankovich: You know, it’s more than fair Anderson. Because what people don’t realize is that I represent activists. What you find is that it takes courage to be an activist.

But not everyone is an activist. Some attorneys are being accused of recruiting disabled clients to file these lawsuits. Daniel Delgado owns a medical equipment repair shop in Madera, California. He is in a wheelchair due to childhood polio and has a learning disability. He didn’t know much about the Americans with Disabilities Act until, he says, he was approached by attorneys Randy and Tanya Moore.

Anderson Cooper: What did they say to you?

Daniel Delgado: They goes, how would you like to make $100,000, $200,000 a year and he goes all you gotta do is ADA. I said what the heck is ADA?

He says he was told he would make $1000 per lawsuit and would help improve access for the disabled.

Anderson Cooper: They were saying to you not only were you going to make this money, but it was actually going to improve life for disabled people?

Daniel Delgado: Exactly.

Anderson Cooper: And that’s important to you.

Daniel Delgado: That was more important to me than anything.

Daniel Delgado, left, and John Morales

Daniel Delgado told us Randy and Tanya Moore sent him to businesses he would not have otherwise visited with instructions to buy something and get a receipt. He signed off as a plaintiff on dozens of cases and says he was asked to recruit some of his disabled friends – including John Morales – to file lawsuits as well.

Anderson Cooper: What kind of businesses did you visit, John?

John Morales: A variety. I went to grocery stores, I went to restaurants, I went to a couple of just different stores.

John Morales: She would tell me to look for if there’s accessible seating, if there’s a table for the handicapped, or if there’s a restroom that you can go into. She told me what to look for so I started doing that.

John Morales says the law firm assured them businesses would get a warning before being sued.

Anderson Cooper: Is that what happened?

John Morales: Never happened as far as I know.

Anderson Cooper: Do you think that’s fair?

John Morales: No, I don’t.

Anderson Cooper: Why?

John Morales: And I wasn’t happy with it. Why don’t I think it’s fair? I just don’t think it’s fair. I think that the business owner should have the opportunity to fix that. You know, everybody should have a second chance, you know.

Both men say they were paid, but nothing close to what they were entitled to under the law. The Moores say that John Morales and Daniel Delgado both signed fee agreements that gave them unlimited power of attorney to initiate lawsuits and negotiate settlements. Delgado and Morales say they only saw the last two pages of the contracts, and didn’t know the details of the agreements they signed.

Anderson Cooper: When lawsuits were settled, did you know how much money the attorneys were making?

John Morales: No, never did.

We wanted to talk to Randy and Tanya Moore, but they refused our request for an on camera interview. They deny asking Daniel Delgado to recruit disabled clients and say they never told him or John Morales that businesses would get advance warning before being sued. The Moores have filed more than 1,000 lawsuits related to the Americans with Disabilities Act and have earned, by our estimate, at least $3 million doing so. They are now being sued by Daniel Delgado and John Morales for fraud. Both men say, while the lawsuits did improve access for the disabled, they have also made some business owners wary of dealing with disabled customers.

Anderson Cooper: You think, John, this is having a negative effect.

John Morales: Yes.

Anderson Cooper: On businesses’ perception of disabled people?

Daniel Delgado and John Morales: Yes.

John Morales: And so instead of us doing a good thing, I felt like because of the advantage they took on us, coming against all these businesses, we did more harm than good.

In places like California and Florida, there is little doubt that disability lawsuits have led to improved access. Most states and the District of Columbia currently award cash damages for plaintiffs who file such lawsuits and with so many businesses around the country still not in compliance, it may not be long before you start hearing about these kind of lawsuits in a town or city near you.

Correction: An earlier version of this script misspelled the name of the town Madera in California. This version has been corrected.

Editor’s Note: In an email to CBS dated October 7, 2016, which was received prior to the airing of the report, Tanya Moore says: “No lawsuits were ever filed without client permission, nor would the fee agreements give me authority to do so. There was a fee agreement in every case wherein the clients asked that a lawsuit be brought by the Moore Law Firm against a specific business they had visited.”

Link to article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-americans-with-disabilities-act-lawsuits-anderson-cooper/

In the latest chapter of a struggle between San Francisco merchants and disabled people suing them for better access, several Richmond District business owners have decided to close or move in the face of lawsuits demanding alterations and monetary damages.

The trend is raising concerns among area shopkeepers, the district's supervisor, Eric Mar, and other city officials.

In the past month, Craig Thomas Yates, who uses a wheelchair, sued three merchants and the landlord of a building at Clement and Arguello streets, arguing that access impediments in the building's retail stores and restaurants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Other small businesses in the area have received similar complaints in recent months.

Lea Dimond, who has owned Thidwick Books in the building since 1999, plans to shut down her store today and try to find a new place rather than fight Yates or significantly alter the configuration of her 865-square-foot shop. She believes she would lose too much inventory to be financially viable if she made the changes necessary to create room for a wheelchair to maneuver.

Motives questioned

Dimond thinks she'll do fine when she finds a new location, but she's frustrated that the city did not warn her of the ADA issues when she received permits for her store. And while she says she and her fellow merchants are in favor of access for all customers, she believes Yates primarily is after money.

She says she tried to make every accommodation for Yates when he came to her shop and later hired an ADA access compliance expert to try to understand whether she could meet the federal requirements.

"Yates is picking off small business owners like grapes on a vine," said Dimond, noting that similar access suits have been settled for tens of thousands of dollars. "This is vexatious litigation, and the city has to be made aware that its commercial landscape is being damaged by this. ... Small businesses are really being hurt."

Yates could not be reached for comment on Thursday.

Tim Thimesch, an attorney representing Yates in his suit against Dimond and a handful of other Richmond District merchants, bristled at the bookstore owner's assertion that Yates is motivated by cash.

"Isn't it cheap and easy to allege that he's doing this for money? And, there's no way to disprove it," Thimesch said. "The real question is whether the businesses are in compliance. If Yates and others didn't seek redress, how would the access problem be resolved?"

Thimesch, who is based in Walnut Creek, said Dimond and other merchants have had plenty of notice that they were out of compliance with access laws - based on letters Yates sent to them - and have done nothing in response. The ADA laws have been around for 20 years, he noted.

Mission District cases

Yates brought a spate of cases against restaurants and small business owners in the Mission District earlier this year, causing some to temporarily close, raising an uproar in the community and garnering attention from city officials.

But Yates is not the only so-called serial litigant suing under the ADA. He and other plaintiffs have partnered with attorneys to target neighborhood business districts with similar claims for years, and the law provides them with a vehicle to do so.

Since the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990, plaintiffs with disabilities nationwide have filed thousands of lawsuits after discovering that, despite laws dictating access to the same goods and services as the rest of the general public, steps, doors and other architectural barriers still exclude them.

The federal ADA law is enforced through civil lawsuits. When a person with a disability believes he has experienced a lack of access, he has a right to sue. Under California's Unruh Act, a plaintiff also may demand $4,000 per impediment.

A Bay Area attorney who has represented Yates in other cases during the past few years is one of the best known and most controversial ADA accessibility lawyers in California.

Vexatious litigant

Thomas Frankovich, who helped Yates sue a number of Mission District merchants, was the subject of a San Francisco Weekly cover story in 2006, "Wheelchairs of Fortune," for his multimillion-dollar ADA suit business.

That same year, Frankovich was barred from filing cases in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for six months after a judge ruled him a vexatious litigant, a legal term for people not acting in good faith when filing suits. Like Dimond, the Mission District merchants sued by Yates also want the city to do more to inform and help protect them from being targeted for access claims.

A common refrain among the shopkeepers who have been sued is that they believed they had complied with all laws when they obtained city permits and licenses to initially open.

Scott Hauge owns a San Francisco insurance business and is the president of Small Business California, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for small business interests across the state.

Hauge started a program nearly a decade ago to try to help merchants fund ADA corrections on their property. Very few owners decided to make any changes, he said.

"Small businesses can tend to ignore these problems, and then they scream when they get sued," Hauge said.

Mar, the San Francisco supervisor who represents the Richmond District, said he has been getting calls from merchants about ADA litigation since he took office in 2008. The suits have hurt the neighborhood's economy, he said.

Mar said he liked the idea of changing the city business permit process so that it includes information about ADA compliance. He also is encouraging owners who need to make costly alterations to seek help with financing through the city's small business office.

Link to article: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S-F-bookshop-owner-to-close-over-ADA-lawsuit-2452370.php

When Roberto Guerrero and his family emigrated from war-torn Nicaragua in the 1980s, they hoped to share their family’s love of coffee with the residents of San Francisco. Starting with one store in 1987, members of the family opened several coffee shops in the Bay Area, including two Cumaica Coffee stores owned by Roberto.

Roberto loves the city of San Francisco and its coffee-loving residents. “San Francisco has been very generous,” he said. “It’s where the doors of opportunity are opened” for first-generation immigrants like himself. Unfortunately, California’s version of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has created doors of opportunity for plaintiffs’ lawyers to target small businesses like Roberto’s.

It began when Roberto received a letter from a customer who claimed that certain features in Roberto’s store violated the ADA. All were minor violations such as a recycling bin placed too close to a door and a pastry case located too close to a counter. Roberto did not realize his store was in violation of the ADA but quickly made the requested changes and notified the customer.

The customer acknowledged that Roberto made the requested changes yet sued anyway and sought nearly $90,000 in damages. Unlike in most states, California law authorizes monetary damages in ADA cases, which incentivizes enterprising plaintiffs and their lawyers to bring lawsuits for even minor ADA violations. The law also provides for damages of up to $4,000 for each and every visit to a non-compliant business, encouraging plaintiffs to not report problems and instead repeatedly visit a business in order to claim greater payouts.

Roberto was shocked by the lawsuit and even invited the plaintiff and his attorney to see for themselves that the violations were corrected. The plaintiffs’ lawyer conceded that Roberto’s store was in compliance, but said it was too late to avoid the lawsuit. After about a year of litigation, Roberto settled the lawsuit.

But Roberto wasn’t the only small business owner targeted. At least 16 neighboring businesses were also sued by the same plaintiff. Two of them were forced to close. The plaintiff’s attorney claims to have filed 2,000 ADA lawsuits in California on behalf of several serial plaintiffs.

Roberto is angry about these lawsuits and the effect they have on businesses and the neighboring community. “These types of lawsuits highly abuse the law,” he said. “They affect an entire community, not just one business.”

Link to article: http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2011/09/san-francisco-coffee-shop-targeted-by-frivolous-ada-lawsuit/

May 19, 2016 Statement by: Representative Poe on “H.R. 3765 ADA Education and Reform Act 2015” Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet For the hearing “Examining Legislation to Promote the Effect Enforcement of the ADA’s Public Accommodation Provisions.”

I would like to thank Chairman Franks and Ranking Member Cohen for inviting me to testify today on H.R. 3765, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015. H.R. 3765 is a common sense, bipartisan bill that aims to ensure access to public accommodations for all citizens while curbing some of the abusive practices that have become common in recent years.

Within the past 10 years or so, there has been a strong uptick in frivolous lawsuits filed under the public accommodation section of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Let me be clear, these are often illegitimate lawsuits. These are individuals who are shaking down business, sometimes without even visiting the locations, by sending them phony demand letters alleging a violation of the ADA. Common practices include alleging that a pool does not have the proper pool lift (sometimes even at properties that do not even have a pool) or other vague alleged violation. Often, the businesses are so confused or frightened of litigation that they will simply pay instead of risking going to court. In these instances, the motivation is not to fix any alleged violations; it is to intimidate businesses into settlement.

Often, it is the same individuals or organizations who are making many of these claims. The business model has been working so well it has become a cottage industry. For example, in Florida, a plaintiff named Howard Cohan filed 529 such suits. He is not alone. In California, a plaintiff named Martin Vogel filed 124 suits. In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff named Christopher Mielo brought 21 lawsuits. In New York, a plaintiff named Zoltan Hirsch brought 24 lawsuits.

In 2015, Howard Cohen sued the Marquesa Hotel in Key West for an alleged violation at their pool despite the fact he had never been a registered guest at the hotel. ADA expert Bill Norkunas, who wrote the original ADA and helped the hotel fight this case, stated that Howard Cohan was essentially operating a “continuing criminal enterprise that boils down to extortion.” 2 Individuals like this are not out to provide public accommodation, they are out for their own profit.

H.R. 3765 takes a series of steps to help curb this abuse of the ADA and to ensure that all citizens have equal access to public accommodations. H.R. 3765 requires the Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice to consult with property owners and the disability rights community and develop a program to educate State and local governments and property owners on effective and efficient strategies to promote access to facilities by disabled persons. This section is intended to promote compliance by getting business and the disability rights community all on the same page so that issues can be resolved quickly and easily without excessive litigation.

The bill also prohibits sending a demand letter for an alleged violation unless the letter includes specific information such as the circumstances under which an individual was actually denied access, the address of the property, and whether or not a request was made to remediate the alleged issue. This section will prevent scam artists like Howard Cohan from sending hundreds of demand letters to businesses he hasn’t even visited in an attempt to solicit settlements. I am open to clarification with the language of this section if necessary.

Section 4 of the bill provides that after an owner and operator are given written notice of an alleged violation they have 60 days to respond in writing to that notice and outline how they plan to remedy the situation, followed by 120 days to make the necessary changes. If the business owner does not complete either one of those steps, the plaintiff may then go to court to commence litigation. This section strikes a thoughtful balance between giving businesses a reasonable time to remedy an alleged violation while also ensuring that a lawsuit may still be filed if a business either refuses or does not reply to a request for a remedy.

Section 5 of the bill directs the Judicial Conference of the United States to consult with property owners and representatives of the disability rights community to develop a model program to utilize alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve these kinds of claims. These mechanisms would be completely voluntary.

This legislation enjoys wide bipartisan support and has been endorsed by the American Hotel and Lodging Association, International Council of Shopping Centers, National Apartment Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Restaurant Association, and the Retail Industry Leaders Association among others.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and I look forward to any questions.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Congressman Ted Poe (TX-02) along with Congressmen David Jolly and Doug Collins introduced H.R. 3765, The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015. This legislation will curb frivolous lawsuits filed by cash-hungry attorneys and plaintiffs that abuse the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

“The ADA is a vital law that is meant to make American businesses more accessible to the disabled. But the integrity of this important law is being threatened. The vast majority of small businesses in America strive to serve their customers to the best of their ability – relying on the ADA as another tool to help ensure that costumers with disabilities can enjoy the services that they provide,” said Congressman Poe. “Most of these business owners believe that they are in compliance with the ADA and have even passed local and state inspections. However, despite their best attempts, certain attorneys and their pool of serial plaintiffs troll for minor, easily correctable ADA infractions so they can file a lawsuit and make some cash. There is a now whole industry made up of people who prey on small business owners and file unnecessary abusive lawsuits that abuse both the ADA and the business owners. This bill will change that by requiring that the business owners have time to fix what is allegedly broken. If they fail to correct the infractions the plaintiff retains all of their rights to pursue legal action. This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of attorneys”

A small cadre of lawyers, some from out of state, are using New York City’s age and architectural quirkiness as the foundation for a flood of lawsuits citing violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The lawyers are generally not acting on existing complaints from people with disabilities. Instead, they identify local businesses, like bagel shops and delis, that are not in compliance with the law, and then aggressively recruit plaintiffs from advocacy groups for people with disabilities.

The plaintiffs typically collect $500 for each suit, and each plaintiff can be used several times over. The lawyers, meanwhile, make several thousands of dollars, because the civil rights law entitles them to legal fees from the noncompliant businesses.

The practice has set off a debate about whether the lawsuits are a laudable effort, because they force businesses to make physical improvements to comply with the disabilities act, or simply a form of ambulance-chasing, with no one actually having been injured.

The suits may claim a host of problems: at a deli grocery in West Harlem, an overly steep ramp without guardrails, high shelves and a narrowing pathway near the refrigerators; at a yogurt shop in the theater district, no ramp, no bathroom doorknob that can be opened with a closed fist and exposed hot water drains under the bathroom sink; at a flower shop on the Upper East Side, no ramp and shelves that are too high.

All of those suits were filed by Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, a lawyer based in Florida, who has a regular group of people with disabilities from whom he selects plaintiffs. One of them, Todd Kreisler, a man in a wheelchair who lives on the East Side of Manhattan, sued 19 businesses over 16 months — a Chinese restaurant, a liquor store and a sandwich shop among them.

The results of the suits were almost immediate: workers grabbed their hammers, installing new ramps, lowering counters and shelves and making businesses more accessible to people with disabilities. And as a product of the litigation, the businesses had to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to Mr. Weitz and his associates.

Mr. Weitz is leading the charge into New York’s courtrooms. Since October 2009, he has sued almost 200 businesses in the state, mostly in Federal District Court in Manhattan. He has eight years of experience filing these suits in Florida, where his practice does not seem to be lagging. Two weeks ago, he brought claims against four Tampa businesses — a strip mall, a convenience store, a bar and a print shop.

Another lawyer with a thriving practice, Martin J. Coleman of Long Island, has filed almost 130 cases in the Eastern District of New York. Mr. Coleman said he was aware the lawsuits had drawn criticism.

“Folks go out there and say, ‘I’m mad at the plaintiffs,’ and ‘I see the same names,’ and ‘Let’s go bash the plaintiffs’ attorneys,’ “ Mr. Coleman said. “I don’t mind that, but the law has been there, don’t kid yourself.”

“As a private attorney, every lawsuit that I file is to make money, because that’s how I make a living,” he added. “And in that regard, I’m no different than any other private attorney.”

Few, if any, cases have gone to trial, according to a review of electronic court records; the defendants usually agree to settle, often in less than six months, closing the cases at a breakneck pace for federal court.

Suit by suit, the lawyers are forcing this tough and intensely pedestrian city, so resistant to change, to meet standards for accessibility that are more than 20 years old. In doing so, they are part of a nationwide trend: In the last year, 3,000 similar suits, including more than 300 in New York, were brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act, more than double the number five years ago. Most of the cases involve claims against businesses filed by nonemployees.

Lawmakers and federal judges have questioned the practice, contending that the lawyers are only interested in generating legal fees; they say the lawyers typically do not give the businesses a chance to remedy the problem before filing suit. Those who defend the lawsuits say the means are justified to bring more businesses into compliance.

Because the settlements are invariably bound by confidentiality agreements, it is impossible to calculate the precise amount lawyers earn in total. One defense lawyer said his client had paid Mr. Weitz and the lawyers who worked with him $6,000 in legal fees. At that rate, Mr. Weitz would take in more than $600,000 for the 106 cases he has closed in New York.

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination by private entities that are open to the public. When Congress was considering the law, advocates for people with disabilities wanted to be able to sue for damages. But Congress allowed litigants to sue only for injunctive relief, or court-ordered remedies to the problems that were raised in lawsuits.

As a compromise for disabled plaintiffs, Congress also awarded fees to the lawyers that bring their discrimination cases.

Ruth Colker, a law professor at The Ohio State University, who specializes in disability law, said the lawsuits were an effective enforcement strategy. “It would be really be impossible for people to find a lawyer if there was no way for lawyers to get paid,” she said.

In Florida, editorial boards, lawmakers and federal judges have long argued against the practice. In 2004, Judge Gregory A. Presnell of Federal District Court in Orlando said in a written opinion in favor of a business owner: “Plaintiff’s testimony left the distinct impression that he is merely a professional pawn in an ongoing scheme to bilk attorney’s fees from defendant.”

Former Representative Mark Foley of Florida regularly introduced legislation to amend the Americans With Disabilities Act to require that business owners receive 90 days notice before being sued. Similar legislation is pending now.

Mr. Weitz, described on his firm’s Web site as an “advocate for the disabled community,” filed cases in New York with a local lawyer at first, but then on his own after his admission to the state bar in 2010. He did not return calls seeking comment.

Mr. Weitz’s use of Mr. Kreisler was not unique. Zoltan Hirsch, a double leg amputee, was represented by Mr. Weitz in 143 suits, filing as many as nine suits on a single day. Maryann Santiago filed six suits. Carr Massi, who uses a wheelchair, sued five businesses in Manhattan.

Ms. Massi said she learned about Mr. Weitz’s efforts at a meeting of Disabled in Action, an advocacy group in New York. “He gave a presentation about access and stuff,” she recalled.

“Let’s give it a shot,” she said she thought to herself. “Stop complaining and do something about it.”

Asked if she ever patronized the businesses she sued after they made improvements, Ms. Massi said, “Unfortunately, no.”

While the disabled plaintiffs cannot collect damages under the disabilities act, they are entitled to receive awards as long as they also sue under city or state human rights law.

Local business owners, who say they are often sued without warning, call the suits shakedowns, invariably signing settlement agreements with strict confidentiality requirements.

“All they want is money; they get the money, and they move on to the next target,” said Ming Hai, a Queens lawyer who has defended businesses from the suits. “It has become a profession to go out and look for a little problem here and there.”

Ms. Massi did not agree with critics of the aggressive litigation by Mr. Weitz. “He is fighting for something he believes in, and if he gets a few bucks, why not?” she said. “I feel like whatever he is doing I am benefiting from it and other wheelchair users are benefiting from it.”

Link to article: https://www.cnbc.com/id/47072996