09/04/2007
CONTACT: Melissa Sharp, 202-314-2068
Washington, D.C.--The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals delivered a critically important decision last week for all small-business owners. The case Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant asked the court to decide whether or not a plaintiff with a solid record of abusing the court system by filing hundreds of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act had standing to sue a California restaurant. The three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit sided with the restaurant determining that the plaintiff and his attorney were wasting the court's time and taking advantage of easy targets such as small-business owners. The National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case urging the 9th Circuit to establish a precedent to discourage plaintiffs from abusing the ADA at the expense of small-business owners.
"This is an extremely important win for small-business owners," said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB's Legal Foundation. "The 9th Circuit's resounding opinion in favor of Mandarin Touch Restaurant sends a crystal clear message to potential ADA serial plaintiffs and their lawyers that says the court will not allow plaintiffs to pursue baseless ADA claims, which are extremely burdensome to both the court and small-business owners."
Jarek Molski, the plaintiff in this case, has filed over 400 ADA lawsuits, creating a solid pattern of abusive litigation. His past actions show that he has no interest in having small businesses improve public accommodations. In fact, in past cases Molski has actually ordered defendants not to repair or modify allegedly inaccessible facilities by sending a letter that threatens additional legal action against the business if the evidence (i.e., the facility) is changed or altered.
In the case before the court, Molski's target was a restaurant 116 miles away from his home in Woodland Hills, Calif. Like all his other complaints, Molski alleged that he visited the restaurant once, found the restroom too narrow, and injured his hand in the exterior restroom door. Molski did not visit the restaurant at any time between the first incident and the filing of his complaint a year later. The defendant, Mandarin Touch Restaurant, challenged Molski's standing to bring suit. The district court found in favor of Mandarin Touch Restaurant and prohibited Molski from filing similar suits in the Central District of California without getting prior court approval. Molski appealed this decision to the 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling and sanctioned Molski's attorney, Thomas Frankovich, for filling more than 200 extremely similar ADA suits that contained clearly exaggerated and false facts surrounding each incident.
