Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Lake Forest Cafe Closing After Ada Lawsuit

ADA lawsuit

  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#31 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:35 AM

Your missing the point.   Anyone who files a lawsuit such as this is only looking for money.   Look at the link already posted and you'll see this person files a lawsuit roughly  1 time per week.   That practically means this is his job.   He didn't come all the way from Ione to eat bacon and eggs at this restaurant.    Additionally, existing businesses should be grandfathered in unless they do a substantial remodel.    With a business this size it'd be practically impossible to retrofit the whole building and stay in business.    What has society as a whole gained from this law ? 

Well, I'm not missing the point according to the OP opening statement.  There are a few add-ons to expand the discussion but I was trying to simplify just to the basic point. 

 

I agree that some lawyers are going all out in the sue-happy thing. I'm pretty sure in the last election that I voted against lawyers being able to make these types of lawsuits without specific criteria. I'm not sure what happened to that bill. 

 

However, as sad as this is: it really is the job of the business owner to stay compliant of local, state and fed laws by remaining knowledgable of these issues. As a business owner I would make it my mission to do so considering the ripe disposition of courts on ADA laws and enforcement, lately.

 

It doesn't mean I am heartless and unfeeling to the owner of this business. I'm just pointing out a point-of-view.



#32 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 25 June 2013 - 06:24 AM

He doesn't have to go to that restaurant, he can go to the many that do have access.

He is just trying to make a BUCK. This is all so sad. I hate to see this restaurant go under

just because of this. We have been there several times.


A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#33 jpow5

jpow5

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 06:43 AM

Well, I'm not missing the point according to the OP opening statement.  There are a few add-ons to expand the discussion but I was trying to simplify just to the basic point. 

 

I agree that some lawyers are going all out in the sue-happy thing. I'm pretty sure in the last election that I voted against lawyers being able to make these types of lawsuits without specific criteria. I'm not sure what happened to that bill. 

 

However, as sad as this is: it really is the job of the business owner to stay compliant of local, state and fed laws by remaining knowledgable of these issues. As a business owner I would make it my mission to do so considering the ripe disposition of courts on ADA laws and enforcement, lately.

 

It doesn't mean I am heartless and unfeeling to the owner of this business. I'm just pointing out a point-of-view.

I think it's harder to keep current with the ADA than it sounds.  If I recall correctly the City ran into a situation like this with the corner curbs a few years ago.  They replaced the older square curbs with the sloped curbs. Then a few months later had to tear those up and replace them because the required slope changed and the bumpy yellow things became required. Granted, this was the CIty and we know how inefficient they are, but my point is the requirements seem to change constantly.

 

Does anyone know how often the requirements are updated? or where they are published? or how long businesses/cities have to make the modifications when new guidelines are established? 

 

Also, I'm assuming Lake Forest Cafe owns the building otherwise the landowner would need to make the improvements, right? I wonder what the plan is for the property? Are they going to try to sell it and the new owner will need to make the improvements? If the ADA non-compliance is disclosed, I guess the buyers could at least figure that into the price.  I just hope it doesn't get boarded up and left with a parking lot of weeds.  



#34 Rich_T

Rich_T

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 07:00 AM

I have a hunch that there were people in wheelchairs who ate at Lake Forest Cafe in the 1980s, in a galaxy a long time ago and far far away, before the ADA rules and lawsuits went ballistic.  Other people might have actually helped them (gasp!) with any access difficulties.



#35 Deb aka Resume Lady

Deb aka Resume Lady

    Hopeless Addict

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,361 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Sole proprietor: Tailored Resume Services
    Volunteer: Court Appointed Special Advocate for a child in the foster care system

Posted 25 June 2013 - 07:10 AM

A bill was signed into law last year with a focus on curbing ADA lawsuit abuses.

 

http://legalnewsline...easure-into-law

 

I would love to know the specific issues at stake, how long ago the attorney contacted the restaurant, how expensive the fixes would be, etc. Does anyone here know the specifics in this case?


Job Search Consultant
Tailored Resume Services
(916) 984-0855

Volunteer, Court Appointed Special Advocate for Sacramento CASA * I Am for the Child
Making a Difference in the Life of Abused and Neglected Children in Foster Care
http://www.sacramentocasa.org/

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. ~ Edward Everett Hale

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~ Anne Frank

#36 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:20 AM

The unfortunate thing is that it may be that they got this lawsuit in just before new laws came into practice which curbs unnecessary lawsuits or drive-bys.

 

I do agree this restaurant is a feather in Folsom's hat. I wish we could help this owner become compliant so that it could stay open. I believe one way to do so would be to voluntarily revoke their business license and then re-build. I too, am curious of the expanse of the necessary changes.



He doesn't have to go to that restaurant, he can go to the many that do have access.

He is just trying to make a BUCK. This is all so sad. I hate to see this restaurant go under

just because of this. We have been there several times.

And Rosa Parks could have chosen a different bus.



#37 redman

redman

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Location:California Hills Subdivision, Folsom, CA

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:58 AM

I doubt it's financially feasible to upgrade Lake Forest Cafe to come into full compliance, and people who think the business owner should be required to aren't thinking this through. It's a very old house. Even with the wheelchair ramp, once you get inside it's just like a big living room with a bunch of tables squeezed in. Assuming they could reconfigure that to allow a wheelchair to pass through the space (while still having enough tables to break even financially), then you have to deal with the restrooms. ADA-compliant restrooms are huge, with lots of maneuvering space in the common area and the stall. LFC has tiny old bathrooms. They'd have to build a huge addition on the building to house bathrooms like that.  Clearly that's out of the question.

 

A social decision has to be made here. We all want to maximize access for disabled, but we also like the charming businesses in historic buildings that are sprinkled around our area. Are we going to grant some exceptions, and protect those grandfathered business owners from frivolous lawsuits, or are we going to get the bulldozer out and demolish ever last historic building that houses a business from one end of the state to the other, because of a "no exceptions" ADA policy?

 

Here's something to think about: How many businesses on Sutter Street don't meet current ADA codes? Shall we knock all the buildings down there too?



#38 (Cheesesteak)

(Cheesesteak)
  • Visitors

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:23 AM

While I agree that the ADA is abused - I wonder what the real story is here. 

 

In an article in the Bee last week, the owner said she was closing because she was retiring - and, apparently, didn't mention an ADA lawsuit.

 

http://blogs.sacbee....forest-caf.html

 

If you want to stem ADA lawsuit abuse - find out what businesses are owned by legislators and their families and try to get them for ADA violations.  Hit them in the pocketbook and see what happens.

 

Anyway - I'm not sure the ADA suit is really behind the closure.



#39 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:57 AM

 

no, apparently not.  they get paid if they sue, no matter what happens to the business. 

I think 4th has it mostly right (but I am not a lawyer). The ADA is a civil rights law.  So a suit under the ADA is for compensation of the disabled person for damages caused by the business not  being accessible. So, the complaint is based on the conditions at the time the plaintiff alleges they were harmed, regardless of what happens to the business thereafter.  However, the plaintiff doesn't automatically get paid. They only get paid if the business settles before trial or they are awarded damages in court.

 

The law mentioned by deb did in fact go into effect immediately upon it's signing in September 2012. It does a number of things, including reducing the minimum damages, prohibiting "stacking" of claims, setting up a system of compliance certification for owners so they and their tenants can be assured that they are in compliance, prohibiting demand letters that offer a settlement to avoid a complaint being filed, providing a time period for compliance after notification before a complaint is filed (although it is not clear to me that compliance eliminates the complaint, but may only limit the amount of the damages), and putting greater.  It clearly was an attempt to address the frivolous lawsuits; does not appear to have helped in this case.

 

Finally, in (a rare) support of supermom's argument, I would point out that one of the unique (and many would argue uniquely bad) features of the ADA law (and particularly it's CA counterpart) is the fact that civil lawsuits are the only enforcement mechanism. Yes, the rules are complicated and ever-changing, but so are all building codes. The difference with the ADA (and again, not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it was the CA version that allowed the frivolous lawsuits) is that in general, upgrades are not triggered by the federal law unless other substantial modifications are being made, in which case the required ADA upgrades are picked up in the building permit and inspection process, whereas the CA law imposes a duty on owners/businesses to be compliant at all times. And since there is no ongoing enforcement outside of lawsuits, it is very easy for businesses to not pay attention to the ADA requirements until they get blindsided by a demand letter, frivolous or otherwise. The revised law seems to address this as well, with the certification process, which is why this case is so perplexing, I would love to know the details.



#40 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:05 AM

I doubt it's financially feasible to upgrade Lake Forest Cafe to come into full compliance, and people who think the business owner should be required to aren't thinking this through. It's a very old house. Even with the wheelchair ramp, once you get inside it's just like a big living room with a bunch of tables squeezed in. Assuming they could reconfigure that to allow a wheelchair to pass through the space (while still having enough tables to break even financially), then you have to deal with the restrooms. ADA-compliant restrooms are huge, with lots of maneuvering space in the common area and the stall. LFC has tiny old bathrooms. They'd have to build a huge addition on the building to house bathrooms like that.  Clearly that's out of the question.

 

A social decision has to be made here. We all want to maximize access for disabled, but we also like the charming businesses in historic buildings that are sprinkled around our area. Are we going to grant some exceptions, and protect those grandfathered business owners from frivolous lawsuits, or are we going to get the bulldozer out and demolish ever last historic building that houses a business from one end of the state to the other, because of a "no exceptions" ADA policy?

 

Here's something to think about: How many businesses on Sutter Street don't meet current ADA codes? Shall we knock all the buildings down there too?

The ADA law does have exceptions, in particular for historic structures (not just old ones) and where upgrades are structurally infeasible, but you would have to fight the lawsuit to prove the exceptions applied, or pay to have them "certified" before you got sued.

 

Very interesting about the Sac Bee article noting retirement. After 31 years, that was my first thought. Perhaps the ADA issue comes in when you try to sell the business/building.  I suspect that getting a new business licences would trigger ADA upgrades.  That would explain shutting down rather than selling the business.



#41 redman

redman

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Location:California Hills Subdivision, Folsom, CA

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:17 AM

I figure she was about ready to leave the business after all those years, and this became the final straw. Running a restaurant is not easy, and for a little place like this it consumes nearly every waking hour.  Anyone would get sick of it at some point.

 

But these ADA lawsuits against older establishments are a problem nonetheless, and we need to keep talking about it. 



#42 tessieca

tessieca

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,292 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:16 PM

The ADA law does have exceptions, in particular for historic structures (not just old ones) and where upgrades are structurally infeasible, but you would have to fight the lawsuit to prove the exceptions applied, or pay to have them "certified" before you got sued.

 

Very interesting about the Sac Bee article noting retirement. After 31 years, that was my first thought. Perhaps the ADA issue comes in when you try to sell the business/building.  I suspect that getting a new business licences would trigger ADA upgrades.  That would explain shutting down rather than selling the business.

This is probably similar to the Squeeze Inn situation. In that case, the suit was filed even though the owner bent over backward to ensure access for the complainant.  If he couldn't get in the same way as everyone else, he was going to fight.  Since Travis preferred to stay in business, he found a new location, although the old location was part of its charm IMHO.  Travis is now a co-chair of the Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, which helped to push through AB1136.  I testified at a committee hearing on Beth Gaines' version of that bill, and listened to a string of wheelchair people saying they deserved to get paid to go around and make sure businesses were compliant.  ADA laws are very tricky and complex.  You can have several violations in one place (each one compensable separately) for having the wrong striping in your parking lot, a ramp that is 2% too high, a paper towel holder in the bathroom that is inches high or low, etc.  Instead of assuming businesses are trying to exclude people, the law should allow for the fact that if violations were missed, they are given an opportunity to fix it and to allow access before they get sued.



Oops, SB 1186.


"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.

#43 Michael Hughes

Michael Hughes

    Superstar

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:48 PM

I'm serious on this.

What about suing the disabled guy and his crack pot lawyer for loss of enjoyment based off their lawsuit and just tie them up in the legal system.

#44 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:49 AM

I doubt it's financially feasible to upgrade Lake Forest Cafe to come into full compliance, and people who think the business owner should be required to aren't thinking this through. It's a very old house. Even with the wheelchair ramp, once you get inside it's just like a big living room with a bunch of tables squeezed in. Assuming they could reconfigure that to allow a wheelchair to pass through the space (while still having enough tables to break even financially), then you have to deal with the restrooms. ADA-compliant restrooms are huge, with lots of maneuvering space in the common area and the stall. LFC has tiny old bathrooms. They'd have to build a huge addition on the building to house bathrooms like that.  Clearly that's out of the question.

 

A social decision has to be made here. We all want to maximize access for disabled, but we also like the charming businesses in historic buildings that are sprinkled around our area. Are we going to grant some exceptions, and protect those grandfathered business owners from frivolous lawsuits, or are we going to get the bulldozer out and demolish ever last historic building that houses a business from one end of the state to the other, because of a "no exceptions" ADA policy?

 

Here's something to think about: How many businesses on Sutter Street don't meet current ADA codes? Shall we knock all the buildings down there too?

Well, technically if they put ADA outhouse in the parking lot that could solve the problem.



I'm serious on this.

What about suing the disabled guy and his crack pot lawyer for loss of enjoyment based off their lawsuit and just tie them up in the legal system.

Im sure that is a figure of speech? Tying up the disabled guy?



#45 TruthSeeker

TruthSeeker

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:54 AM

I think it sucks that all these businesses are closing because of one greedy bastard jackhole who doesn't even patronize those businesses, he just wants to rape their coffers and take advantage of his handicap status to extort money from businesses - I guess that beats working huh?

 

The real pisser is that the world has to cater to a few and make the majority suffer for those few, it's nuts - but this is California!

 

Unless it can be proven that handicap people actually visit those businesses, they should tell that lawsuit happy freak to go screw himself.

 

I hate to say but I hope karma catches up with that jerk and punishes him someday for all the BAD he's done to our local businesses.


Svzr2FS.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users