Attys. Mark Potter, Russell Handy; Center for Disability Access
|
The Thousand Oaks Acorn reports that CDA client Erik Langner denied authorizing Attorney Mark Potter to file a lawsuit in his name and that the lawfirm was "trying to take advantage of disabled people"; click here to reach the story or click icon at right.
| 
Click to view |
Read Judge Carney's comments:
- "The parties agree this cancelled check was never disclosed during discovery. Additionally, although Ms. Meola presented the check to her counsel three days prior to trial, Mr. Potter, counsel for Ms. Meola, did not inform defense counsel of the sudden discovery of the check. This lack of disclosure is a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have known, at least as of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, that whether or not Ms. Meola visited the Aztec Hotel was a hotly contested issue in this lawsuit. Notwithstanding the clear relevance of the check, Mr. Potter has not provided a sufficient justification for why his client did not produce the check earlier. Despite this violation of Federal Rules, a violation for which the Court could exclude the evidence and sanction plaintiff for withholding evidence, the Court has accepted the check into evidence." (Footnote 10 on pages 7 and 8; emphasis added)
- "MS. MEOLA'S TESTIMONY IS UNPERSUASIVE" (Page 10, line 4; emphasis added)
- "Ms. Meola's stated justifications for visiting the Aztec Hotel have changed throughout the lawsuit." (Page 10, lines 5-6; emphasis added)
- "The context and purpose of Ms. Meola's trip has entirely changed since the summary judgment stage. Indeed, only after Ms. Reece provided evidence that the Brass Elephant did not have a band playing on Wednesday, January 1, 2003 did Ms. Meola begin to assert that the purpose of her trip was exchanging Christmas gifts." The Court finds this alteration in the story line significant." (Page 10, line 17 to page 11, line 2, emphasis added)
- " . . . Ms. Meola's stated time of visit contradicts the chronology of events provided by . . . two witnesses the Court finds consistent and credible." (page 11, lines 4-6; emphasis added)
- "MR. BURNS TESTIMONY IS INCONCLUSIVE" (Page 12; line 1; emphasis added)
- " . . . Mr. Burns contradicted his prior testimony . . ." (Page 12, lines 15-16; emphasis added)
- "The remainder of Mr. Burns' testimony was superficial, vague and lacking in detail. Accordingly, Mr. Burns' testimony does not convince the Court . . ." (Page 12, lines 17-19; emphasis added).
|
Were you induced to settle a lawsuit filed by this firm, or retain it as a client, during the time it used the Great Seal of the State of California on it's website? [see image to right] If you believed this organization was a government agency, or affiliated with one, please Contact Us.
|
Click to view. |
This law firm filed 100 complaints in about a year for the same client, and claimed their client suffered personal injuries in each lawsuit. However, when the attorney who filed these lawsuits was required to certify information under penalty of perjury, he consistently failed to identify any injuries (see Section IV "Proof" below). Click on any of the lawsuits below to see a PDF (i.e., Adobe Acrobat) copy of the complaint, then see the second sentence of paragraph 11 (which is usually on page 4) of each lawsuit (which claims personal injuries); then scroll down to Section IV, below ("Proof") and look at any of the documents in the right-hand column of that section--the response to Question 4 of each, made under penalty of perjury and signed by the same attorney who filed the complaint, suggests that there were no injuries!
|
In the News:
Click on the icons below to watch news features about ADA accessibility lawsuits:
|
Section I: The Langer Complaints:
The following 104 complaints were purchased directly from the Clerk of the San Diego Superior Court, and scanned directly from the copies provided. Scans were compared to the originals received for accuracy, which remain on file.
|
Section II: The Botosan Complaints:
The following text file was developed from Court records and indicates that approximately 288 lawsuits were filed on behalf of Plaintiff Botosan in various Federal Courts. Each complaint we have seen resembles the Langer Complaints and is believed to have been filed by one or more of the attorneys above.
|
Section III: The Moreno Complaints:
The following text file was developed from Court records and indicates that approximately 138 lawsuits were filed on behalf of Plaintiff Moreno in various Federal Courts. Each complaint we have seen resembles the Langer Complaints and is believed to have been filed by one or more of the attorneys above.
|
Section IV: Proof:
So how can we know for sure whether the plaintiffs in these cases actually suffered any personal injury as their attorney claimed? In each of the cases below, when the attorney was required to state under penalty of perjury whether there were injuries or not, the attorney consistently indicated that there were no injuries! Posted below in the right-most column are downloadable copies of documents, signed by one or more attorneys in this matter, which clearly confirm that no personal injuries were suffered-- in the same case that the attorney had only weeks before filed a complaint alleging personal injury:
|
Section V: Equal Time:
We will post any written responses or comments received from any individual named or referenced in this website.
Contact Us:
|
|
© 2009 ADAabuse.com
By your continued viewing or use of this website you thereby agree to the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy. If you do not agree to those terms and conditions, please leave this site immediately and make no further use of any of the content therein. 01-07-2009
|
|
