mark handler
SAWHORSE
Federal judge rules against ADA lawsuit, lawyer
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_d0e11e00-91b0-11e6-9ace-3f832cd6c533.html
A federal judge imposed sanctions against a controversial attorney and his co-counsel, citing their “bad faith behavior” in their dealings with a defense attorney after they filed a “boilerplate” suit accusing a property company of violating the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
Attorneys Peter Strojnik and Fabian Zazueta, and the foundation they represent, Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities, were ordered by U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow to reimburse Golden Rule Properties for certain legal fees stemming from the case.
Snow also ordered the case remanded back to Maricopa County Superior Court, ruling that the foundation lacked standing to sue Golden Rule in federal court because it could not prove that any individual was harmed by the alleged ADA violation they cited, or that even plaintiffs Shannon Puckett or David Ritzenthaler were members of the foundation.
Snow wrote in his ruling that the foundation filed 162 similar ADA claims in federal court and about 1,000 in state court, with all of the suits containing “the same general language alleging the local business violated the ADA by having inadequate signage or parking spaces for the disabled.”
In the Golden Rule case, the foundation cited a lack of van accessible parking spaces or signs that were not at least 60 inches high, as required by the ADA.
But Snow said the foundation failed to prove that “any disabled individual encountered the defendant’s defective signage” and was actually denied access.
Snow ruled that the foundation lacks standing to sue because it could not prove harm to a disabled person, or that it was acting on behalf of Puckett or Ritzenthaler as members.
“Rather, the complaint attempts to allege that the plaintiff has a ‘close relationship’ with all ‘former, current and future disabled individuals due to its charitable acts,’” without providing any specific facts to back up this argument, Snow wrote.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has cited similar arguments in court filings on the state cases, saying that the foundation lacks standing to sue because it presented no evidence that a disabled person was harmed by an alleged ADA violation.
In addition, Snow accused Strojnik and Zanueta of using deceptive tactics in their dealings with Golden Rule’s attorney. The judge wrote that the foundation’s attorneys told Golden Rule’s defense attorney that “they had no intention of dismissing the federal claims if the defendant removed the case” to federal court.
But after the case was removed to federal court, the foundation moved for dismissal. It was a second example of the same behavior that led to sanctions against the foundation’s attorneys in another suit against Sun West Dental Properties, Snow wrote.
“AID and its counsel’s decisions to dismiss its federal claims under these circumstances are not ‘straight-forward tactical decisions.’ Rather, these decisions reflect expensive bait-and-switch maneuvers aimed at prolonging litigation and imposing costs on the opposing party,” Snow wrote.
– Reach Jim Walsh at 480-898-5639 or at jwalsh@timespublications.com.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_d0e11e00-91b0-11e6-9ace-3f832cd6c533.html
A federal judge imposed sanctions against a controversial attorney and his co-counsel, citing their “bad faith behavior” in their dealings with a defense attorney after they filed a “boilerplate” suit accusing a property company of violating the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
Attorneys Peter Strojnik and Fabian Zazueta, and the foundation they represent, Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities, were ordered by U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow to reimburse Golden Rule Properties for certain legal fees stemming from the case.
Snow also ordered the case remanded back to Maricopa County Superior Court, ruling that the foundation lacked standing to sue Golden Rule in federal court because it could not prove that any individual was harmed by the alleged ADA violation they cited, or that even plaintiffs Shannon Puckett or David Ritzenthaler were members of the foundation.
Snow wrote in his ruling that the foundation filed 162 similar ADA claims in federal court and about 1,000 in state court, with all of the suits containing “the same general language alleging the local business violated the ADA by having inadequate signage or parking spaces for the disabled.”
In the Golden Rule case, the foundation cited a lack of van accessible parking spaces or signs that were not at least 60 inches high, as required by the ADA.
But Snow said the foundation failed to prove that “any disabled individual encountered the defendant’s defective signage” and was actually denied access.
Snow ruled that the foundation lacks standing to sue because it could not prove harm to a disabled person, or that it was acting on behalf of Puckett or Ritzenthaler as members.
“Rather, the complaint attempts to allege that the plaintiff has a ‘close relationship’ with all ‘former, current and future disabled individuals due to its charitable acts,’” without providing any specific facts to back up this argument, Snow wrote.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has cited similar arguments in court filings on the state cases, saying that the foundation lacks standing to sue because it presented no evidence that a disabled person was harmed by an alleged ADA violation.
In addition, Snow accused Strojnik and Zanueta of using deceptive tactics in their dealings with Golden Rule’s attorney. The judge wrote that the foundation’s attorneys told Golden Rule’s defense attorney that “they had no intention of dismissing the federal claims if the defendant removed the case” to federal court.
But after the case was removed to federal court, the foundation moved for dismissal. It was a second example of the same behavior that led to sanctions against the foundation’s attorneys in another suit against Sun West Dental Properties, Snow wrote.
“AID and its counsel’s decisions to dismiss its federal claims under these circumstances are not ‘straight-forward tactical decisions.’ Rather, these decisions reflect expensive bait-and-switch maneuvers aimed at prolonging litigation and imposing costs on the opposing party,” Snow wrote.
– Reach Jim Walsh at 480-898-5639 or at jwalsh@timespublications.com.