Welcome to ADAabuse.com!

Home Page

Cohan, James

Frankovich

Garcia, Alfredo

Hubbard

Landers

Lakota

Mehrban

Molski

Potter

Pinnock / Wakefield

Pinnock Injury Claims

Pinnock lawsuits

P&W False Claims

Class Actions?

Sims, H.J.

Singleton

Issues

Injury Claims

Not paying tax?

Contact Us

 

Attys. Mark Potter, Russell Handy; Center for Disability Access


"Must see" video of KABC's investigation: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8329671

Follow up story at:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8432040

See also: http://www.trippleaaatruth.com/phase2cohan.html

Document
Lisa of lawsuits Potter filed for Cohan
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.

Document
Click to view

Still more troubling conduct:   Read the memorandum of decision at right to see what the judge thought of the most recent trial by this firm =>


Document
Meola v. Reece - Memorandum of Decision

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.


Document
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:


2 April 2003 Fox6 News feature with Greg Phillips:
Media
High resolution - 4.2 mb file
Media
Compressed file 1.5 mb
2000 KGTV 10 feature with Marti Emerald:
Media
High Resolution - 5.5 mb file
Media
Compressed file - 2mb

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. 


784559 Langer v Dimenstein784767 Langer v Golden Blue Ridge784971 Langer v Seven Claremont Properties
784996 Langer v Craig & Bructon785155 Langer v Shields 785302 Langer v Kurtz Street Properties
785977 Langer v Strauss786032 Langer v Sanfillipo786315 Langer v Dhillon
786316 Langer v Balistreri 786656 Langer v Hoe786732 Langer v Knight
787244 Langer v Tran 787362 Langer v Dowd 787532 Langer v Wyde
788135 Langer v Bauer 788397 Langer v Vagenas 788523 Langer v Shea
789003 Langer v Wai789226 Langer v Sorourbakhsh789339 Langer v Bartell
789964 Langer v Bartell 790274 Langer v Huffman 790810 Langer v Lau
790959 Langer v Kelly 791242 Langer v Somo 791602 Langer v Jenkins
792466 Langer v Escondido Investments 792957 Langer v Rababy793200 Langer v Durkin
793752 Langer v Chanda793763 Langer v Siegel794500 Langer v Davisson
795101 Langer v Diaz795555 Langer v Elias795859 Langer v Justa Nother Partnership
795948 Langer v Ramirez796042 Langer v Investcal796341 Langer v Lew
796832 Langer v Mansour797215 Langer v Sako 797223 langer v Elkhorn Ranch
797405 Langer v Sun 798232 Langer v Pearson 798467 Langer v Exxon Mobil
798656 Langer v Habeeb 800101 Langer v Habeeb800254 Langer v Campbell
800321 Langer v Wiggington Petroleum 800502 Langer v Karlovich801116 Langer v Kirsner
801208 Langer v Kelton801474 Langer v Davis 801562 Langer v Valero
801655 Langer v May 801741 Langer v Turnipseed801834 Langer v Morales
801838 Langer v Exxon Mobil801935 Langer v Smith 802039 Langer v Hagio
802110 Langer v Vaneldereen 802202 Langer v Delatorre802438 Langer v Yuhause
802461 Langer v Cohen802594 Langer v Fazio802810 Langer v Bennett
802811 Langer v Skop 802888 Langer v Insured Income Properties802990 Langer v Erpelding
803185 Langer v Wineteer803277 Langer v CIF Holdings803334 Langer v Boutros
803505 Langer v. Lee 803763 Langer v SDCCC803782 Langer v Firestone
803880 Langer v Ly 803949 Langer v Scripps Miramar Car Wash804193 Langer v Eckis
804274 Langer v La Valencia 804358 Langer v McGrath Investors804453 Langer v Fahrquar
804542 Langer v Yusunas 804616 Langer v Krinitsky804722 Langer v Chevron
804789 Langer v Meanley804860 Langer v Attisha804985 Langer v Tosco
805057 Langer v Randazzo805146 Langer v Latif 805343 Langer v Tien
805422 Langer v Tavlaridis 805547 Langer v Swall805547 Langer v Wasserman
805641 Langer v Snyder805734 Langer v Small805824 Langer v Leeper
805990 Langer v Palomar Enterprise806035 Langer v Eischen806071 Langer v Baddour
806147 Langer v Hynan806219 Langer v Taylor  
 

Recently Added:


 
022482 Langer v Beanland023626 Langer v Madsen  
800181 Langer v Pasquale801384 Langer v Morales803575 Langer v Exxon Mobil
792783 Langer v Theodorelos798791 Langer v Shaae807427 Langer v Heinkel
807502 Langer v Cobb 807691 Langer v Vaught  
     

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.


Click to view:


Botosan 288 Complaints  

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.


     

Click to view:


Moreno 138 Complaints  

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: 


Case No.: 022482


Personal Injuries Claimed in Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 023626


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 784767


Personal injuries claimed in Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 789226


Personal Injuries Claimed in Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 790274


Personal Injuries Claimed in Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries

Case No.: 791242


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 792466


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 793200


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 793763


Personal injuries claimed in Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 794500


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries

Case No.: 795555


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 796341


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 796832


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 797223


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 798791


Personal injuries claimed in Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

Case No.: 800502


Personal Injuries Claimed at Paragraph 11Under Penalty of Perjury: No Injuries!

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


Web Hosting powered by Network Solutions®

What the people suing you may not want you to know . . .