• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Serial suit filer challenged by Old Town hotel

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,895
Location
So. CA
Friday, October 2, 2015

Serial suit filer challenged by Old Town hotel

BY MANDY MILES Citizen Staff

http://keysnews.com/node/70066

mmiles@keysnews.com

A Broward County attorney has sued more than 1,400 Florida hotels and restaurants on behalf of plaintiff Howard Cohan, claiming the businesses violate the Americans with Disabilities Act — and has been collecting attorney’s fees from each.

But attorney Mark Cohen’s gravy train may have stopped in Old Town Key West, where the Marquesa Hotel is standing its ground and refusing to write the check that settles the lawsuits and makes Cohen go away. On the contrary, the hotel’s legal team eagerly anticipates its day in court, and recently convinced a federal judge to hold a hearing on the case in Key West.

Judge Lurana Snow initially scheduled the hearing for 11 a.m. today at the federal courthouse on Simonton Street. But attorney Cohen last Friday — a week before the hearing — asked the judge for a 30-day postponement, saying an attorney from his office who would be handling the hearing would be “unavailable on Oct. 2 due to private medical reasons.”

Snow granted the postponement and rescheduled the hearing for 1 p.m. Dec. 4 in Key West.

Cohen did not return phone calls or emails Thursday from The Citizen.

Cohen filed suit against the downtown boutique hotel on July 31, claiming his disabled client, Howard Cohan, was the victim of discrimination because the Marquesa Hotel does not have a pool lift, or other method for disabled guests to enter the hotel pool.

In his complaint, Cohen asks the court to rule that the hotel’s absent pool lift indeed violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cohen also asks the judge to “award reasonable attorney’s fees, all costs (including, but not limited to court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of suit to the Plaintiff … and such other and further relief as it may deem necessary, just and proper.”

Fort Lauderdale attorney William Salim represents the Marquesa Hotel.

In his response to the lawsuit, Salim denies any wrongdoing on the part of the hotel, and wrote, “The property at issue does not contain a public pool and all amenities are available for use only by registered guests,” Salim’s response states. “At no time did the Plaintiff ever register as a guest at the property and could not have accessed the same.”

Hotel attorney Salim also enlisted the help of ADA expert Bill Norkunas, who helped draft the Americans with Disabilities Act in the 1970s and ‘80s.

Norkunas has been following Cohen’s series of lawsuits and is disgusted by his practice, calling it a “continuing criminal enterprise that boils down to extortion.”

“He’s egregious,” said Norkunas, who agreed to help the Marquesa Hotel with its defense pro bono. Norkunas also said that hotel attorney Salim agreed to limit his fees in order to shed light on these lawsuits, which have cost Keys properties hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“Because many of the lawyers representing hotels are real estate lawyers or personal injury lawyers, they’re not always familiar with the specifics of the act,” Norkunas said, walking through the usual process:

A property owner gets sued by Mark Cohen on behalf of plaintiff Howard Cohan, for something such as not having a pool lift, Norkunas outlined.

The owners take the suit to their attorney, who reads the lawsuit and assumes it means the property is supposed to have a pool lift. So he suggests his client spend about $7,500 on a lift and pay Cohen the attorney’s fees he demands in each lawsuit to settle the suit.

“Most lawyers figure it’ll cost the property owner less to settle the suit than take it to court,” Norkunas said.

“He gets about $4,500 in attorney’s fees for each case he settles,” Norkunas said, doing some quick math. “So he files 1,400 suits in Florida, times $4,500 per case, and he’s looking at more than $6 million.”

But Cohen is not entitled to many of the attorney fees he’s collecting, Norkunas said. Furthermore, he added, most of the hotels Cohen sues on behalf of Howard Cohan are not required to have the pool lifts on which the suits are based.

“The specifics of the law state that a property only has to have a pool lift if it’s new construction, so it can be installed from the beginning, or if the installation of a lift is ‘readily achievable’ for a modest expenditure. And in the federal registry, the ADA defines modest expenditure as $500,” Norkunas said.

He also explained that the Americans with Disabilities Act states that once a defendant — in this case a hotel — fixes whatever barrier that limited a disabled person’s access, “then the case is moot and the defendant is not responsible for the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.

“Mark Cohen is not entitled to a penny of attorney’s fees for any of these lawsuits he’s settled,” Norkunas said, adding that the ADA also expressly prohibits Howard Cohan, the perennial plaintiff, from receiving any compensatory damages from an ADA lawsuit.

“In other words, a disabled plaintiff cannot legally receive any financial benefit from these ADA cases. Would any plaintiff agree to be a serial plaintiff for Mark Cohen in hundreds of cases without making a dime?” Norkunas said.

“I planned to say all this in federal court [today]. But Cohen is petrified to come to court. If he was doing the right thing, he would have shown up in court [today.] I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t show up at the Dec. 4 hearing.”

Judge Snow, in her order granting the postponement, typed into the docket records, in all capitals, “ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL MUST ATTEND.”

“Judge Snow is the first federal judge to require Cohen and Cohan to appear in court to answer for all these lawsuits,” Norkunas said, adding that he wouldn’t be surprised if Cohen dropped his lawsuit against the Marquesa Hotel between now and the December hearing.

“But the best thing for the Marquesa Hotel — him dropping the suit — would be the worst thing for everyone else fighting this fight against this guy and these lawsuits,” Norkunas said. “So now we wait until Dec. 4.”
 
Hope the Hotel does't drop that suit!

Finally a Judge that does the right thing, requiring them to appear in court!

pc1
 
Anyone have the "Federal Register cite" for "modest" (never seen this word either) expenditure; First I have heard of the $500 limit.
 
“The specifics of the law state that a property only has to have a pool lift if it’s new construction, so it can be installed from the beginning, or if the installation of a lift is ‘readily achievable’ for a modest expenditure. And in the federal registry, the ADA defines modest expenditure as $500,” Norkunas said.
Oh No!...this ADA mumbo jumbo is starting to make sense.
 
Ice: How so? No such reference? See DOJ 1996 advisory on Readily Achievable. No way they can claim inability to pay for or provide a lift as an existing "Public Accommodation".

Norkunsa is a bit "old" in the tooth and being used for "emotional" support (smiling).
 
ADAguy said:
Ice: How so? No such reference? See DOJ 1996 advisory on Readily Achievable. No way they can claim inability to pay for or provide a lift as an existing "Public Accommodation".Norkunsa is a bit "old" in the tooth and being used for "emotional" support (smiling).
So we are back to the same stinkin BS we've had for years.
 
No, only a defense counsel trying to muddy the waters in defense of his client.

I trust the opposing expert will shoot a hole in the old experts attempt to misstate the facts.
 
ADAguy said:
No, only a defense counsel trying to muddy the waters in defense of his client. I trust the opposing expert will shoot a hole in the old experts attempt to misstate the facts.
I'd like to see the defense file a counterclaim that includes a RICO claim of action against the plaintiff, Civil RICO was designed to allow private parties to receive greater damages against organizations that engage in extortion, racketeering, or other criminal actions, the statute was originally designed to go after the Mafia but has been successfully used against parties engaging in other forms of extortion and racketeering.

\ said:
Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise". Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."

RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. The Court remanded for consideration of whether PLAN committed the requisite acts in a pattern of racketeering activity.¹
I'd also like to see RICO used against CASps, people who are going around soliciting businesses for huge fees to protect them against ADA suits, then give them a worthless poster stating nothing but that the property has been inspected offering no protection at all. If the Pro-Life Action Network could qualify as a RICO enterprise engaging in extortion and racketeering then these criminals could be brought to justice as well.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
 
“The property at issue does not contain a public pool and all amenities are available for use only by registered guests,” Salim’s response states. “At no time did the Plaintiff ever register as a guest at the property and could not have accessed the same.”
A vast majority of hotels can not allow non-registered guest to use their pools due to insurance restrictions. If he was not a registered guest he should not have standing. If you want to be treated equal then prove you have standing before the suit can move forward.

http://www.qpilch.org.au/resources/factsheets/Standing_and_Involvement_in_Legal_Proceedings.htm
 
This is the only logical response so far, technically as you have noted he was not personally injured and should be denied standing, but not for the reason the defense stated.

mtlogcabin said:
A vast majority of hotels can not allow non-registered guest to use their pools due to insurance restrictions. If he was not a registered guest he should not have standing. If you want to be treated equal then prove you have standing before the suit can move forward.http://www.qpilch.org.au/resources/factsheets/Standing_and_Involvement_in_Legal_Proceedings.htm
 
Conarb, you know not of what you speak, a CAsp is a businessman acknowledged by the state. We are a free business economy, it remains for the purchaser of a CASp's services to agree to pay the requested fee or not. CASp's are free to cast their nets into any water they chose. Have a beef, take it up with the state architect or Ida Claire of his staff who heads up the program.
 
Back
Top