Opinion
Case No. CV 04-0358 ER.
November 9, 2005
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on November 7, 2005, to determine whether Plaintiff had standing to sue Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Though the Court finds Plaintiff's testimony to be evasive, dishonest, deceptive, and contrived, the objective evidence introduced at the hearing shows an extensive history of patronage at locations close to his home and is sufficient to establish the minimal requirements for standing to sue for violations of the ADA.
The finding of standing is influenced by the fact that this case originally was filed in the Southern District of California in December, 2003, prior to the time Plaintiff's well-documented maelstrom of abusive litigation began. (Plaintiff filed over 200 ADA claims in 2004 and was declared a vexatious litigant in the Central District of California and California Superior Court. He filed these lawsuits as a means to obtain extortionate settlements with little or no interest in obtaining remedial measures.)
Molski v. Mandarin Touch, 347 F. Supp. 2d 860, 861 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (declaring Molski a "vexatious litigant" and requiring that he obtain leave of court prior to filing further ADA claims); Molski v. Mandarin Touch, No. 1172370, slip op. at *2 (Ca. Sup'r Ct. 2005) (same).
See Molski v. Mandarin Touch, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (noting that, in his other cases, Molski's attorney has sent letter threatening lawsuits for spoliation of evidence if any remedial measures are taken.).
This case, filed in San Diego in 2003 by a different attorney who appears actively to pursue remedial measures in addition to monetary damages, does not appear to be part of the same abusive pattern. Defendants appear to be businesses that Plaintiff patronizes regularly, and this lawyer appears to be pursuing remedial measures as part of the resolution of this case.
The finding of standing is limited to the specific facts of this case and does not suggest that Plaintiff may have standing to sue in any other case.
THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS DISCHARGED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve, by United States mail or by telefax or by email, copies of this Order on counsel for the parties in this matter.