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

 

Singleton Law Group


"The Court finds that counsel's statement was a purposeful attempt to deceive the Court.  The discrepancy between what was represented to the Court and what was the truth is such a large and glaring one as to obviate any belief that the misstatement was the product of mistake or oversight on counsel's part."  [See page 8, lines 13-17 of document to right=>]
Document
Click to view.
"Plaintiff's counsel's billing practices are nothing short of appalling.  Counsel may rest assured that any future request for fees and costs made to this Court will be subjected to the absolute strictest scrutiny."  [See footnote 8 on page 7 of document to right =>]
Document
Click to view.
Mr. Singleton claimed: "I have handled many hundreds of access cases. . . . Very large casinos in Nevada, the state of California, several counties and cities, as well as other very large corporate chains have attempted to defense some of my clients.  All have failed."  [see highlighted text on second page of document to right =>]
Document
Click to view.
But was that really true? See case at right, in which the State of California prevailed (see item 98 of docket to right =>) and a judgment of $2,315.68 was awarded against his client (see entry at 7/11/03 in document to the right =>).
Document
Click to view.
Mr. Singleton claimed: "PLAINTIFF'S attorney has made a thorough investigation of the Subject Property and represents through PLAINTIFF that he is not aware of any other violations of any laws governing access to the disabled at the Subject Property." [see paragraph 11 on page 6 of document at right and signature at page 8; note court file stamp on first page =>] 
Document

But was that really true? 

Q: " . . . to the best of your knowledge, is that correct?"

Mr. Singleton: "That was a term that the defendant's attorney wanted"

Q: "But is it true?"

Mr. Singleton: "I don't think I ever went to that property."

[see highlights at pages 3 and 4 of attached document]


Document

Watch out! The ultimate threat: If he proposes trading his client's claim against yours in exchange for a malpractice claim against you, would some clients find this irresistible? (see documents to right =>)


Document

Each of the following lawsuits (100% of those we've been able to obtain) claims the plaintiff was physically injured (see paragraph 48 of each complaint):


Document
01cv146 Collins v Felcor
Document
01cv176 Collins v Fresh Pies
Document
01cv767 Collins v Consolidated
Document
01cv925 Collins v Ocean
Document
01cv1161 Collins v Hitchcock Complaint
Document
01cv2521 Collins v Sears
Document
01cv7936 Collins v Banter
Document
01cv9922 Collins v City of Indio
Document
01cv11211 Collins v Marie Callender

02cv397

Collins v RTA Desert

(transfered to 02cv7985)


Document
02cv422 Collins v La Quinta Plaza
Document
02cv965 Collins V Main Street
Document
02cv1329 Collins v Vons
Document
02cv1343 Collins v Mock
Document
02cv1373 Collins v Hsusn
Document
02cv2574 Collins v Hilton
Document
02cv 4942 Collins v Albertson's
Document
02cv7985 Collins v RTA Desert
Document
02cv9875 Collins v Patel
Document
03cv128 Collins v Del Taco
Document
03cv1490 Collins v Casa Guadalajara
Document
02cv3383 Escobedo v Little Jocko's
Document
02cv3921 Escobedo v QS San Luis Obispo
Document
02cv6161 Escobedo v RKK Hospitality
Document
02cv6295 Escobedo v King Ventures
Document
02cv9053 Escobedo v Panchal
 
Document
02cv619 Hohlbein v Karleskint
Document
02cv878 Hohlbein v Everquest
Document
02cv4281 Hohlbein v Curly Redwood
Document
03cv3981 Hohlbein v Bay Area Diablo Petroleum
Document
03cv4369 Hohlbein v W&W Mobile Home Sales
 
Document
03cv0073 Hopkins v Dahliwahl
Document
03cv781 Hopkins v Grand Obispo
 

01cv1188

Marsh v GA Enterprises

(Transferred to 02cv5202)


Document
01cv1193 Marsh v Coe
Document
02cv5202 Marsh v. GA Enterprises
Document
02cv7120 Marsh v. San Ysidro BB Properties
Document
03cv780 Marsh v Petersen
 
Document
03cv1453 Auer v Hanford Hotels
Document
02cv4136 Bohl v Oliver
Document
01cv1884 Brisbon v Corkill
Document
02cv372 Darbey-Key v Concal
Document
02cv933 Duckstein v Houyen
Document
03cv977 Evans v Monterey Inst
Document
03cv0515 Geiger v Big Oil
Document
03cv975 McEwen v Slack & Winzler
Document
02cv3713 McMahon v Pizza with Pizzazz
Document
03cv269 Smith v Promenade
   
Document
01cv464 Van Vuren v Universal
Document
03cv873 Wilkie v Shomler
Document
03cv1529 Wong v Hung Shing

© 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 . . .