Mexican restaurant targeted by baseless lawsuit

28 Comments

1. p weiss said on September 26, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

   The owners should have counter-sued!

2. Michael said on October 31, 2011 at 3:00 pm #

   Yes, why didn’t the owner’s counter-sue. Sure, this one person was abusing the system, but what about all of the valid lawsuits. Restricting and reforming litigation always sounds like a good idea until you are the one trying to seek compensation for injuries or some other relief in the courts.

3. James said on November 1, 2011 at 9:53 am #

   In Texas they had major tort reform revisions. Instead of getting rid of ridiculous suits, they limited the maximum recovery on medical malpractice claims. How does limiting large jury awards reduce the filing of frivolous lawsuits? It doesn’t. Just like not requiring workers’ compensation, Texas just puts more people on Federal welfare.

4. Dan Lee said on November 2, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

   0ver ten years ago, a similar lawsuit was filed against the Mission Ranch in Carmel. The owner fought it in court and won. But the owner also had the financial clout to be fight it and the moral character to know that the ADA laws were inflexible and subject to abuse. The owner was Clint Eastwood.

5. Cola said on November 2, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

   This sad case of abuse doesn’t appear to be a “Baseless Lawsuit” or Frivolous Lawsuit but a Fraudulent Lawsuit. Seems like a suit against the fraudulent claim brought against the restauranteurs might be the order of the day. Lawyers for the fraudsters might be on the hook for sanctions as well. The issue of fraud is already clearly addressed in law and the solution would seem to clearly lie in a judicial remedy. When the pain of perpetrating criminal activity exceeds the benefits the behavior will change. If the first of the 500+ ADA lawsuits had pushed back with their on claims (assuming the 1st ADA claim was also a fraud) Jaime del Campo and Ramiro Arvizu would have not been likely to have been sued by the apparent fraudster. Fight back is the advice I would give small business owners. The pain you save might be the next 499 potential business owners to be sued by a fraudster.

6. keith mcnabb said on November 3, 2011 at 8:10 am #

   my wife and I are victims of a frivolous lawsuit. We spent our life savings (100k) defending our daughter in a frivolous law suit against her (a 22 year old college student that they knew wasn’t capable of paying any sort of judgment) It is forcing her into filing bankruptcy. We honestly believe the intent was to extort money from us, the parents

7. Bill D. said on November 3, 2011 at 11:29 am #

   Cola (#5 above) is so right !

   My small company had to waste our time and our insurance company’s money to defend against a plaintiff who had a long record of frivolous suits. Sure, he did not receive any money, but nothing was done to “incentivize” him to not pursue his practise of doing so.

   Some falsely-sued company needs to make an example of the plaintiff and his lawyer; sue them both, and publicise the results throughout the legal community.

   The system needs to strongly dis-incentivize such behavior.

8. Bob said on November 3, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

   Were the premises outside the ADA? That is a legitimate question. Also, just because this guy lied about being there doesn’t mean the system is wrong. There are sanctions for that. These guys can counter sue for abuse of process and perhaps the prosecutor can look at a perjury charge if he signed an affidavit. That would be an interesting suit, but the failures of the restaurant, if any, might be relevant. This restaurant likely had insurance and that company hired and paid for the lawyer. They likely aren’t out any real money.

   I am not willing to sacrifice my rights to a jury trial because of this situation. The system can handle this. These guys didn’t close up shop. In fact this is silly, is this the best the Chamber of Commerce can do????

9. mike said on November 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

   What a disgrace. We have decreed and lawful property rights which neighbors covet. Spending nearly $50,000 to have a case dismissed, go through all the rubberstamped processes with a visiting judge, defending against perjured statements, compelling discovery, any sanctions? Nope!

   Should we have any faith in the system, do we have any money left to put at risk? No.

   We paid for their protected free speech.

10. Jay said on November 4, 2011 at 3:25 am #

    What kind of help can this Face of Lawsuit Abuse.org or the U.S. Chamber offer to us small businesses that are victims of these abuses? I’m a defendant in one of these ADA related abusive lawsuits where the plaintiff and his law firm are serial abusers. They are a huge law firm out of San Diego that specialize in going after small businesses and there is no way to fight them. One can only beg them to try to get a settlement as low as possible and they are so arrogant. It’s legalized extortion!

11. James Strong said on November 4, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    The ADA is there for a purpose, if the restaurant is not complying with the law they should be sued or should fix the problem. California passed a law expanding the rights of a litigant in an ADA case to allow them the right to recover $4,000.00 per day for violations. If Californians don’t like it tell the legislature to fix it. It is not a frivolous lawsuit to apply the laws that the State passes. If the person never was in the restaurant they should loose their case but if there is a problem fix it or pay a judgment. Which is cheaper?
    The system is built to weed out frivolous lawsuits and very few ever get very far. Don’t let the slanted media reports shape your views. It might be your family killed in an accident that can’t get full relief because of tort reform laws.

12. Patrick Kofmehl said on November 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    Those of us in a small business have to devote all of our time just to stay abreast of the many regulations. Then to answer the concerns of our employees and provide the very best product and services for our customers. Frivolous lawsuits in many cases is the straw that
    breaks us.

13. Wills said on November 4, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    Good case for tort reform! And to those who suggest counter-suit instead: 1) Owners already said they don’t have a whole lot of money, 2) Why take a chance at getting negative publicity, 3) add risk exposure (ie. losing), and 4) spending good money for bad – obtain a judgment only to not be able to collect on it because the guy is broke, hence, why the scammer sued in the first place. Give me a break kiddos…

14. Steve said on November 4, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    Another example of extortion by trial bar. The plaintiff and his lawyer should be charged with criminal extortion and thrown in jail for a long time. Until plaintiffs and lawyers are made accountable for their actions, this kind of nonsense will continue.

15. pam pigott said on November 7, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    It appears that many are assuming the restaurant is guilty of something in spite of the fact nothing was proven. The owners should not have to take action. The district attorney’s office should go after him for fraud and seek damages for misuse of the system.

    Just because someone may have insurance is no reason to write it off. Insurance is way too high as it is because of this kind of thing.

16. Publius Cato said on November 8, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    Most states have sanction laws, that in a situation like this either the plaintiff or their attorney should be subjection to monetary sanction, including reimbursing the defendant.

17. Schroeder6th said on November 10, 2011 at 9:52 am #

    I don’t understand why the Defendants Attorney didn’t invest in an Investigation regarding Pltf’s history. It’s admissible

18. David Quintana said on November 12, 2011 at 6:52 pm #

    This is a hard battle for small business. Only those that have to deal with all the problems of frivolous lawsuits are willing to do something about it. Every other person who is a happy slave to a corporation = employee does not care. After all their boss will deal with it. I do construction and I have to pay about 10% of my sales on insurance and lawyers fees just to be prepared for a lawsuit. I need employees desperately to grow but I can’t hire anyone because I cannot afford one of them getting hurt to get money. I have to turn down jobs with people I cannot cross check because I’m afraid they will take me to court. For those of you that say well counter-sued well I cannot spend all that time fighting all this people. As a business it seems like we spend more time with our lawyers that with our clients and that is not productive.

19. jean said on November 16, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    These types of laws, like the child welfare laws, protect the person filing the complaint, even when the allegations are false and intended as an attack on you. Similarly, anyone may file a child abuse complaint, without any proof, annonymously, against you, and the child welfare department will NOT give you the name or details of the complaintant. Socialist and communistic. They have made it so you may not protect yourself in America, but it is fine to attack you without any provable cause.

20. mike said on November 18, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    Perhaps we should have a system where true free speech should prevail. If the plaintiff has a problem he should directly complain or suck it up and patronize a different business with mirrors that accommadate his vanity. Or ask for help!

    Instead a business, or individual, must defend (pay for his free speech via an attorney) or default. It’s to easy for a blithering idiot attorney to file a lawsuit. Either they prove they did the maximum amount of due diligence before filing a lawsuit or be eternally roasted. And early in the process so an innocent defendant is not victimized from many nights of lost sleep and tens of thousands of dollars just to defend against BS.

21. Stan said on November 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    I’m disabled, a wheelchair user. Lawsuits like this make me angry, because I see some people blame all people with disabilities for the actions of a small minority.

    Remember, there are frivolous lawsuits everywhere that involve able-bodied people, too. A friend of mine owns a deli, and periodically he gets sued for phony “slip and fall” incidents. He finds it easier and cheaper to pay rather than fight. That is the real injustice.

    People abuse car insurance laws, homeowner insurance laws, and find all kinds of ways to try to use different laws to profit from via lawsuits.

    So, don’t blame the laws, don’t blame people with disabilities. Blame the individuals involved, and blame the courts for not finding ways to stop this kind of abuse.

22. Alex said on December 6, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    …no one should have to counter sue. The point is to stop these Lawyers and their lawsuits. They use the law to make themselves much more significant than they are by dragging people into the (un)justice system and raping them of their hard earned finances. Lawyers and judges don’t contribute to the overall well-being of this country or its economy and its far beyond time that business owners both big and small stand up!

23. oldgoat said on December 24, 2011 at 8:50 am #

    My brother is an emergency dept doc. He is frequently has frivolous law suits brought against him. Usually for $1-2,000. The insurance company always wants to settle because its cheaper but my brother refuses to. He often has to pay the court fees himself but he can’t stand to see these “people” and their slimy lawyers get away with embezzling.

    The lawyers usually start off with –it will just be so much easier for everyone if you just settle out of court–even though he didn’t do anything wrong! Many of these “victims” make a living suing other people! He has won every time so far but the costs are HIGH!

24. Michael said on December 31, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    Did some of you people miss the fact that the restaurant was in compliance? And they were being sued by a ‘victim’ who had never been to the business? Good that the ‘victim’ in this case dropped the suit when it was discovered that he was a liar, too bad there are scumbags out there trying to extort hard working peopke.

25. ZEKE said on January 1, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Support the Institute for Legal Reform. The Judiciary is out of control.

26. BusinessBoy said on January 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    I do not practice law and never had the intent, but I did graduate from law school and passed the bar. What we need is two things — fewer law schools and graduates and to make the bar as difficult to pass as other professional examinations. In Florida, 1 out of 265 people of age to be, are lawyers. We need to get back to being a country of entrepreneurs, not lawyers. BTW, I went to law school because my lawyers knew nothing about business. After law school I discovered they also didn’t know much about law either.

27. as said on January 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    My problem with some of the comments here are they claim the system is designed to weed out frivolous law suits and that tort reform would dramatically reduce our rights to sue.

    While I agree that we should have the right to seek damages against someone or some entity who does not exercise due care, we have set the bar so low on what ‘due care’ is that we are not responsible for our own stupidity. Case in point, look at all of the warnings on a curling iron and the admonitions not to insert into any orifice.

    How about suing an automobile manufacturer for not designing a vehicle capable of safeguarding someone who drives at 70+ on a dirt road and hits a sandy patch and then rolls numerous times – becoming a parapalegic.

    Those who state that no reforms are needed are just flat wrong, or money grubbing lawyers who wish to game the system for their own profit. Even in cases that have no true merit, companies will settle out of court rather than fight and win a case that costs more than a settlement. And, as sue happy as we are, you look at multiple such suits, why fight it when it would bankrupt you?

    In the end, we all pay more for goods and services because the insane are running the asylum!

28. John Murray said on January 3, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    There should be a judgement somewhere along the lines on if a lawsuit is frivolous (or fraudulent) at which point the person being sued has the right to counter-sue or even be awarded their own costs without a trial.
    I don’t want to eliminate someone’s ability to sue but the people who file frivolous lawsuits need to suffer when they abuse the system.