Business

When starting a business with multiple partners, there should be some type of operating agreement or stockholders agreement in effect.  Too often our attorneys receive phone calls from prospective clients with issues regarding the operations of their company, and in particular, issues with their partners.  To avoid these situations, an operating agreement or stockholders agreement should have been in place prior to the commencement of the operations of the business.  A few items to consider before starting a business are listed below.

Restrictions On Transfers.  Provisions are often inserted in an operating agreement or stockholders agreement to restrict a parties or a company’s transfer (including a sale, assignment, pledge or any other manner of encumbrance) of any shares or rights to acquire any shares (such as options, securities or warrants).

This type of provision will

• ensure that the stockholders will be required to continue to own shares and will therefore have a vested interest in the success of the company;
• ensure that, for as long as the restrictions apply, the relative ownership and management of the company will remain predictable and certain; and
• prevent third parties, with whom the stockholders do not have a relationship, from becoming substantial stockholders of the company.

Right of First refusal.  It may be desirable to give all stockholders the right to purchase shares from a party desiring to sell his or her shares prior to the shares being sold to a third party (i.e. a pre-emptive right). How does a Seller offer shares? Time acceptance periods?  How could a Stockholder(s) offer to buy shares from other Stockholders?

Tag Along Rights.  A stockholders agreement can also provide for co-sale rights, also known as “tag along rights,” to stockholders.  If a stockholder wishes to sell or transfer shares, the selling stockholder would have to notify the other stockholders of the terms of the transfer or sale.  Thereafter, each of the other stockholders would have the right within a certain period of time after such notice to “tag along” in the sale and to sell his or her shares.

Drag Along Rights .The stockholders agreement could provide that if one stockholder elects to sell all or part of his or her shares, then the stockholder would have the right to require the other stockholders to join in such sale on the same terms as the original selling stockholder, so long as the other stockholders receive at least a certain price per share.

Death or Disability.  What happens upon death or disability.  Should a stockholder or company have the right to purchase to the deceased or disabled stockholder’s interest? How will a value be placed on the shares?

Management.  Who is authorized for certain actions, i.e. entering into debt obligations, approving contracts outside the ordinary course of business, entering into any contract above $x, authorizing the lending (or borrowing) of money by the corporation, hiring employees, etc.

The intricacies of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defenses become apparent when we dig into recent case law. A compelling example is a recent case where the Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims due to their failure to satisfy the standing requirement. This examination will explore the facets of Suris v. Crutchfield New Media, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96603, including a discussion on the standards of standing and mootness in ADA cases, essential considerations for an effective ADA defense strategy.

Understanding the Standing Requirement in ADA Defense

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that they suffered an actual, concrete, and particularized injury that is either imminent or has already occurred. They also need to demonstrate that the injury was likely caused by the defendant and would likely be redressed by judicial relief (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203, 210 L. Ed. 2d 568 (2021)).

In the ADA context, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief has suffered an injury in fact when they can allege past injury under the ADA, that the discriminatory treatment would likely continue, and they intended to return to the subject location (Calcano, 36 F.4th at 74).

In the case at hand, the plaintiff's claim failed on the third prong of the Calcano test: intent to return. Their failure to offer any "non-conclusory factual allegations" demonstrating a plausible intention to return to the defendant's website due to barriers of access was the determining factor.

The Importance of Concrete Facts in ADA Defense

The absence of concrete facts regarding the plaintiff's intention to return to the website was a significant element leading to the dismissal. A successful ADA defense strategy should carefully scrutinize the plaintiff's allegations for factual context, especially their intention to return to the site or location in question.

Cases where district courts found an intent to return adequately pled, plaintiffs typically alleged more concrete facts (Walters v. Fischer Skis U.S., LLC; Chalas v. Barlean's Organic Oils, LLC). By contrast, courts have dismissed cases for lack of standing where plaintiffs raised conclusory allegations, as seen in Velazquez v. Everlast Worldwide, Inc. and Tavarez v. Moo Organic Chocolates, LLC.

Mootness as a Key Element in ADA Defense

Beyond the standing requirement, mootness also emerged as a critical element in this case. The defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's claims were moot, arguing that they had corrected the error that led to the identified videos lacking closed captioning, making it unreasonable to expect the discriminatory treatment to recur.

This scenario highlights the importance of proactive measures in an ADA defense strategy. Demonstrating a commitment to remedying identified accessibility issues can effectively render ADA claims moot.

Conclusion

In ADA defense, understanding and applying standing and mootness concepts can mean the difference between dismissal and proceeding to trial. This case underscores the importance of these elements in an ADA defense strategy, emphasizing the need for concrete facts to back plaintiff's claims and proactive measures from defendants to address accessibility issues. For effective ADA defense, these factors are crucial.

In the United States, individuals with disabilities are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which aim to prevent discrimination based on disability. In recent court decisions, Avila v. Acacia Network, Inc. and Hanyzkiewicz v. Allegiance Retail Servs., LLC, plaintiffs brought forward ADA and FHA claims against defendants for alleged violations.

Avila v. Acacia Network, Inc. involved a plaintiff who brought forward an FHA and ADA claim against a landlord for failing to comply with a doctor's recommendation for transfer to a one-bedroom apartment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim but granted leave to amend. To state a claim of intentional discrimination under the FHA, the plaintiff must allege that they were a member of a protected class, suffered relevant adverse treatment, and can sustain a minimal burden of showing facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation. Under the ADA Title III, it is discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability, the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. The court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under both the FHA and ADA Title III.

Hanyzkiewicz v. Allegiance Retail Servs., LLC involved a plaintiff who alleged ADA Title III and NYCHRL violations based on an inaccessible website. The defendant was subject to a consent decree from a prior case and had remediated its website, but the plaintiff claimed that accessibility issues remained. The court found that the plaintiff's suit must be enjoined because it could upset the consent decree, which includes a proposed class that is absent from the consent decree and seeks materially different remedies. The court also found that the defendant's voluntary cessation of discriminatory conduct did not moot the case.

In conclusion, these recent court decisions highlight the importance of understanding the rules and requirements of the ADA and FHA when bringing forward claims. Plaintiffs must allege the necessary facts to state a claim under these acts, and the courts must ensure that consent decrees are respected and enforced. For individuals with disabilities, these decisions offer insight into their legal protections and avenues for seeking justice when their rights have been violated.

In the realm of American jurisprudence, the case of Adams v. 336 Knickerbocker Realty, LLC stands as a significant juncture in upholding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This case, filled with nuanced legal implications, sheds light on the fundamental rights of disabled individuals and the vital role of ADA in safeguarding those rights. This blog post aims to dissect this landmark case in a reader-friendly manner, making the complexities of law accessible to all.

The Second Circuit's Stand on Default Judgments

The Second Circuit, within its judicial purview, has persistently cautioned against resorting to default judgments as a primary means of resolving disputes. The court has always emphasized that a default judgment, an extreme remedy, must be used sparingly and as a "weapon of last, rather than first, resort." This viewpoint upholds the importance of providing every litigant with a fair chance of being heard, and echoes the preferential treatment towards resolving disputes on the merits, rather than default.

Key Factors in Granting Default Judgments

The Court possesses considerable discretion when deciding whether to grant a default judgment. It takes into account several factors, including whether the grounds for default are well established, if the allegations were included in the original complaint, and the potential amount of money involved. Essentially, the larger the sum of money, the more scrutinized the justification for a default judgment.

Case Analysis: Adams v. 336 Knickerbocker Realty, LLC

In this specific case, the defendants were indisputably in default as they failed to respond to the complaint or appear in court. Despite receiving proper service, they did not file an answer, nor did they react to the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment or the Court's order regarding attorney's fees.

The plaintiff, a person with cerebral palsy and reliant on a wheelchair, alleged violation of his rights under the ADA by the defendants, the owners of a public accommodation facility. The plaintiff faced numerous ADA violations, including architectural barriers that impeded his access to the property.

Based on the defendants' alleged ADA violations, the Court recommended a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This case serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of the ADA in ensuring accessibility and fair treatment for all individuals, irrespective of their physical abilities.

In Askins v. Santos, a pro se plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against his sister for her role as a caretaker of their mother. The plaintiff claimed that his Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights, Human Rights, and ADA Rights had been violated. However, the court found that the plaintiff did not identify any federal law under which his claim arose and that his factual allegations did not suggest a federal cause of action.

It is important to note that ADA public accommodations play a crucial role in ensuring that people with disabilities have equal access to goods and services. However, it is equally important to understand the legal framework surrounding ADA claims. Pro se plaintiffs can file complaints that will be construed liberally, but if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, if the claim is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be based, the case may be dismissed.

Askins v. Santos serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding ADA public accommodations claims. Pro se plaintiffs may file complaints that will be construed liberally, but they must still meet the legal requirements for a federal cause of action. By familiarizing themselves with the relevant legal rules, people with disabilities can better protect their rights and access the goods and services they need.

Woods v. Kasztl Walsh, LLC is a recent case that highlights the importance of establishing standing to seek injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff in this case sued an inaccessible apartment complex for ADA Title III, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL violations. However, the court dismissed the ADA claim, citing the plaintiff's vague and conclusory allegations of wanting to return to the subject location.

The court explained that to establish standing, a plaintiff must show a past injury under the ADA, a reasonable inference that the discriminatory treatment will continue, and a real and immediate threat of future injury based on concrete plans to return to the subject location. The plaintiff's "someday intentions" of wanting to return are not sufficient to establish standing.

In conclusion, Woods v. Kasztl Walsh, LLC highlights the importance of understanding and meeting the ADA standing requirements when filing a claim. Plaintiffs must provide specific and concrete plans to return to the subject location to establish a real and immediate threat of future injury. This case serves as a reminder that vague and conclusory allegations are not enough to establish standing under the ADA.

The SDNY in a recent decision entitled Gannon v. Hua Da, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53172 (SDNY 2023), reinforced the importance of establishing standing under the ADA. To show standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have suffered an injury under the ADA, that there is a real and immediate threat of future injury, and that they intend to return to the subject location. Failure to establish any of these elements can result in a case being dismissed, as it was in this case. It also highlights the need for courts to consider the broader context of cases to ensure that litigants are not abusing the ADA to pursue frivolous litigation. 

In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant under Title III of the ADA, alleging that he was unable to access a deli/grocery due to barriers that violated the ADA. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show that he had the intent to return to the subject location, which is an essential requirement for standing under the ADA. The court granted the motion to dismiss.

The court relied on the three-prong test laid out in Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd. to determine whether the plaintiff had standing. The plaintiff must show (1) past injury under the ADA, (2) it is reasonable to infer that the discriminatory treatment would continue, and (3) it is reasonable to infer that the plaintiff intended to return to the subject location. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show the third prong, i.e., he lacked the intent to return.

The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to establish that he intended to return to the subject location. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that he had visited the premises in the past, and he did not explain why he wanted to visit the specific deli/grocery urgently. Additionally, the plaintiff did not allege that he resided in close proximity to the property, which would have suggested that he would return to the location.

The court also considered the "broader context" of the case. It noted that the plaintiff had filed 26 identical ADA lawsuits within two months, which suggested that the plaintiff was not genuinely interested in accessing the deli/grocery but instead was using the ADA to pursue litigation.

On October 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of Acheson v. Laufer, a pivotal case addressing the concept of ADA tester standing. At the heart of this case is the question of whether individuals who conduct tests to uncover violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have standing to bring lawsuits for alleged violations. This blog post explores the key arguments and implications of this case, which could significantly impact ADA litigation.

Understanding ADA Tester Standing:

ADA tester standing refers to the legal right of individuals or organizations to file ADA lawsuits based on their status as "testers." Testers are individuals who purposely visit public accommodations, such as restaurants, hotels, or retail establishments, to evaluate whether they comply with the ADA's accessibility requirements. These testers may or may not have a disability themselves but are conducting tests to uncover potential violations.

Key Arguments in Acheson v. Laufer:

1. Standing and Injury : The central issue in Acheson v. Laufer is whether ADA testers have suffered a legally recognizable injury that grants them standing to sue. The plaintiffs argue that they have experienced harm, such as emotional distress or frustration, when they encounter ADA violations during their tests.

2. Third-Party Standing : The case also raises questions about third-party standing. Third-party standing allows individuals to assert the rights of others who may be directly affected by ADA violations. The argument here is whether testers can assert the rights of disabled individuals who may visit these places in the future.

3. Deterrence vs. Exploitation : Advocates for ADA tester standing argue that it is essential to deter ADA violations by allowing testers to bring lawsuits. They believe that testers play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the ADA. On the other hand, opponents argue that permitting testers to sue could lead to exploitation and frivolous lawsuits.

4. Preventing Discrimination : The ADA was enacted to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Supporters of tester standing argue that it helps identify and rectify discriminatory practices, ultimately serving the ADA's purpose. Opponents argue that it may open the floodgates to litigation and abuse.

The Supreme Court's decision in Acheson v. Laufer could have significant implications for ADA litigation and enforcement. If the Court rules in favor of ADA tester standing, it may encourage more individuals or organizations to conduct accessibility tests and file lawsuits. This could lead to increased pressure on businesses to comply with ADA requirements.

Conversely, if the Court limits tester standing, it may make it more challenging for ADA violations to be exposed and addressed. This could affect the ability of individuals with disabilities to enjoy equal access to public accommodations.

The Supreme Court's decision in Acheson v. Laufer will undoubtedly shape the landscape of ADA litigation and enforcement. It will be essential to monitor the Court's ruling and consider how it may impact both businesses and individuals with disabilities seeking to ensure equal access to public spaces. Regardless of the outcome, this case highlights the ongoing debate about the balance between preventing discrimination and deterring potential abuses of the ADA's enforcement mechanisms.

The landscape of digital accessibility is complex and continually evolving, with a recent case — Toro v. Black Sheep Enter., Inc. — underscoring the importance of ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance for websites. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case without prejudice due to two key reasons: the plaintiff's failure to allege standing and the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Alleging Standing in ADA Cases

Standing is a legal term that refers to a plaintiff's right to bring a lawsuit because they have been directly affected by the issue at hand. In ADA cases, this typically involves demonstrating a concrete, actual or imminent, and particularized injury due to an inaccessible business or service.

In Toro v. Black Sheep Enter., Inc., the court found that the plaintiff failed to allege standing. Although the visually impaired plaintiff claimed that the defendant's website lacked accessibility, the court determined that the plaintiff's assertions didn't sufficiently establish a direct and particularized injury. This demonstrates the importance of concrete evidence of injury in ADA litigation.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Digital Accessibility

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's ability to hear a particular kind of case. In the Toro v. Black Sheep Enter., Inc. case, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, which presents another layer of complexity in ADA website cases.

Interestingly, the court ordered the plaintiff to move for leave to amend the complaint due to the standing issue. However, this step was bypassed when the plaintiff filed a notice of settlement, seeking a stay of all deadlines. Consequently, the court opted for a dismissal without prejudice.

Navigating ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL

This case was not solely about federal law - it also invoked the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the Garden City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), illustrating the multi-layered nature of accessibility legislation. Ensuring compliance with these intersecting legal requirements can be a daunting task for businesses, particularly for those operating in the digital space.

Moving Forward

The dismissal of Toro v. Black Sheep Enter., Inc. serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL compliance. Businesses must be proactive in ensuring their digital platforms are accessible to all, preventing potential legal disputes. This is not just a matter of compliance, but a testament to a company's commitment to inclusivity.

Introduction

For anyone interested in the complex legal field of website accessibility, and particularly how it intersects with both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Garden City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), we've got an intriguing case to analyze: Velazquez v. Nextphase, Inc., No. 22 Civ 07967 (CM), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105152, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2023).

In this case, the defendant, Nextphase, Inc., made a motion to dismiss under rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), alleging the plaintiff lacked standing and that their website was not a "place of public accommodation" under Title III of the ADA or the NYCHRL.

Understanding the Legal Jargon

To make sense of this, let's first understand a couple of crucial legal terminologies. Standing refers to the right of a party to bring a legal claim. Subject matter jurisdiction relates to a court's authority to adjudicate a particular type of dispute. Title III of the ADA mandates that all places of public accommodation (like a website) should be accessible to individuals with disabilities. NYCHRL is a set of laws that protect individuals from discrimination in Garden City.

The Issue of Standing

In this case, the court ruled that the plaintiff, Mr. Velazquez, did not have standing. That's a key term in the realm of civil litigation and website accessibility. It means that the court did not find Mr. Velazquez had suffered an 'injury in fact', there was no causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and that there wasn't a likelihood that a favorable decision would redress the injury.

An Important Precedent

In the case of website accessibility, a plaintiff must make non-conclusory, plausible factual allegations to prove they intend to return to the website - something that Mr. Velazquez failed to do. This was significant because the Second Circuit Court has established that vague claims about intending to visit a website "in the near future if it is made accessible" are insufficient to demonstrate intent to return.

Takeaways

This case highlights some key considerations in the realm of ADA and website accessibility litigation. First, it reminds us of the importance of standing, and how crucial it is for plaintiffs to demonstrate concrete and imminent injury to establish it. Secondly, it underscores the intricacy of website accessibility law and the nuanced understanding required to navigate it successfully.

Loadholt v. Herbs, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59116 (SDNY 2023) is an ADA website case that sheds light on the issues of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. In this case, the defendant, who does most of its business from a brick-and-mortar store in Colorado, argued that it had almost no contacts with New York, and therefore, lacked personal jurisdiction in the state. However, the court disagreed and held that selling items to New York-based customers through a website constitutes purposeful availment, and thus, confers personal jurisdiction.

The defendant also argued for a transfer based on forum non conveniens, but the court denied it, citing that the plaintiff's choice of forum is generally entitled to great deference when the plaintiff has sued in their home forum. Additionally, the court found that the nearly identical facts to the ADA website case Paguda v. Washington Music Sales Ctr., Inc. (2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16064 (SDNY)), where a venue transfer was denied, supported its ruling.

Overall, this case is significant for people with disabilities because it reinforces the importance of ADA compliance for businesses, even if they do not have a physical presence in the state where the lawsuit is brought.

The Loadholt v. Herbs, 2023 case highlights the importance of ADA compliance for businesses, especially in the context of websites that allow for the purchase and exchange of goods. The court's ruling on personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens reinforces the need for businesses to ensure that their websites are accessible to people with disabilities, even if they do not have a physical presence in the state where the lawsuit is brought. This case serves as a reminder that businesses must take the necessary steps to ensure that their online services are accessible to all, in order to avoid potential legal liabilities.

Judge P. Kevin Castel highlighted the dangers for attorneys using the artificial intelligence tool ChapGPT where in they included citations of non-existent court cases and required these New York attorneys to pay a $5,000 fine for use of the non-existent cases.  The decision highlights the importance in work that attorneys perform in drafting briefs by performing actual research and not relying on the artificial intelligence tool ChapGPT.

See decision here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.55.0_3.pdf 

That is why at Bashian & Papantoniou we take great pride to ensure that we properly guide our clients through this entire process.

From the commencement of a lawsuit through settlement or even trial – our team of New York trial attorneys are available around the clock to answer any question that you may have and to provide strategies on how you can be successful in your litigation.

The first thing we do at our initial meeting with a new client is to discuss the claims and damages at issue and statutory deadlines that you may be facing.  The challenges for a plaintiff may include a statute of limitations deadline or for a defendant a potential default for failure to answer a pleading or motion. The next step will be a discussion about whether your dispute is something that can be resolved without the need to engage in a long and costly litigation.  We will discuss with you the anticipated costs of litigating the claims and conduct a cost effective analysis to determine whether it would be more beneficial to actively settle.

If settlement is your choice, we will reach out to our adversaries and attempt to negotiate a settlement that best meets your standards and goals.  If not, we will immediately develop a strategy and plan for taking advantage of all legal remedies available.

Whether you are a plaintiff or defendant engaged in litigation it is important that you have the proper guidance to ensure that deadlines are not missed and that the appropriate course of action is taken. Through our years of litigation and trial experience, the New York trial lawyers of Bashian & Papantoniou will assist you in each and every step of the litigation process so that you know what is expected and there are no surprises.

If you have any questions concerning a lawsuit and are not yet represented by legal counsel please feel free to contact the attorneys of Bashian & Papantoniou.

In an issue of first impression, the Family Court, Kings County, held that children’s report cards and teacher comments are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court considered many factors in its decision and also into consideration that a child’s academic and social progress in school and the relative capacity of each parent to foster the child’s intellectual development are often major considerations in custody disputes, and evidence bearing on those issues is certainly relevant.

 The Court reasoned that before business records may be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent must establish specific foundational facts: (1) that the record be made in the regular course of business—essentially, that it reflect a routine, regularly conducted business activity, and that it be needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business, (2) that it be the regular course of such business to make the record, in other words, a double requirement of regularity—essentially, that the record be made pursuant to established procedures for the routine, habitual, systematic making of such a record, and (3) that the record be made at or about the time of the event being recorded—essentially, that recollection be fairly accurate and the habit or routine of making the entries assured.

 The Court concluded that while recording teacher grades and comments may be part of the business of a school, the grades and comments themselves are clearly hearsay and do not constitute an “act, transaction, occurrence or event,” within meaning of business records exception to hearsay rule; but rather, they are expressions of the subjective judgments of the teacher who determines or authors them, formulated over a period of time, and based on any number of factors.

Baltazar v. Goldfarb Props., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30238 (SDNY 2023) is a recent case that sheds light on how the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) relate to housing accommodations for individuals with disabilities. The pro se plaintiff in this case alleged that his landlord refused to make reasonable accommodations in allowing him to move to a different location to address his issues of isolation.

Under the FHA, disability discrimination includes a "refusal to make 'reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.'" To state a claim under the FHA for failure to accommodate a disability, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant knew or reasonably should have been expected to know of the disability, that the accommodation was likely necessary to afford the disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, that the requested accommodation was reasonable, and that the defendant refused to make the requested accommodation.

The ADA generally requires that a defendant not discriminate against individuals with disabilities in public services and make reasonable accommodations to enable them to take part in those services. To succeed on an ADA claim, a plaintiff must show that they were denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a public service or activity, or were otherwise discriminated against, due to their disability.

In this case, the plaintiff's FHA claim failed because he did not plead sufficient facts to show that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of his disability or failed to provide reasonable accommodations. Similarly, his ADA claim failed because he did not allege any facts showing that he was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the defendants' services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by reason of his disability.

Conclusion: It's important to understand the requirements under the FHA and ADA to ensure individuals with disabilities are afforded equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing accommodations. Requested accommodations are reasonable where the cost is modest and they do not pose an undue hardship or a substantial burden on the housing provider. If you or someone you know has faced discrimination or a lack of reasonable accommodations in housing, seek legal advice to ensure your rights are protected.

It appears that France and Google have a relationship that’s “on the rocks.”  Yet somehow, France has become the first and only country thus far to agree to a book deal with the online monster. Google’s book project, which seeks to digitize books that are out of print, has already copyrighted, the vast majority of the world’s books.

In fact, several days ago, Google closed on a deal with  Hachette Livre , a publisher of French books, to turn thousands of retired books out from the ashes into timeless availability online. Hachette, the largest publisher in France, currently holds approximately 25% of the market share.  Google expects to be up and running with the French version of its digital e-book store ‘Google Editions’ where a user will be able to find the e-book versions of Hachette’s titles by the end of this year. While a huge breakthrough for Google, this doesn’t relieve them of the many pending lawsuits, where publishers in France are claiming the company illegally scanned their books and uploaded them for sale.

France is not the only country that Google appears to be after.  Indeed, Google is apparently seeking a similar agreement with U.S. publishers concerning the creation of e-versions of out-of-print books.

However, last March, a proposed settlement agreement between Google and U.S. authors and publishers was struck down by Federal Court Judge Denny Chin.   The Court ruled that as to copyright and anti-trust grounds,   Google appeared to be seeking a monopoly of the book market and that any such agreement would need significant revisions before it could pass .

Moreover, in a hearing held last week in New York, Judge Chin asked Google if it would revise it’s U.S. deal to look more like that of Hachette’s. In other words, instead of giving the company carte blanche with its access and allowance to digitize any out-of-print American book, allow the author or publisher to retain control over which books can be scanned and sold by Google; a privilege Hachette retained in its deal with the company.   The legal representatives from Google refused to commit to such terms just yet.   Therefore, Judge Chin’s time frame within which the parties must come to a revised settlement agreement is quickly ticking away.  The next deadline is scheduled for September 15, 2011, in which Google, national publishers and authors, and portable book-reader owners are hoping for a mutually agreeable resolution.

Perez v. Due Milla Realty Grp. LLC is a recent court case involving a Title III ADA claim. The defendant in this case was closing operations at the subject premises effective April 9, 2023. The court held that when a public accommodation closes, an ADA claim becomes moot, and a private individual may only obtain injunctive relief for violations of a right granted under Title III; he cannot recover damages.

In this case, the district court dismissed all federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and as a result, the district court is precluded from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. Therefore, the case was dismissed as moot, and supplemental state law claims were dismissed.

Conclusion: This case highlights the importance of understanding the rules and requirements for pursuing an ADA claim, especially when dealing with a public accommodation that is closing its operations. As this case demonstrates, a plaintiff cannot recover damages in such a situation, and injunctive relief may only be obtained if the plaintiff can establish standing and a real and immediate threat of future injury. Therefore, it is crucial to consult with an experienced attorney who can guide you through the legal process and help you protect your rights as a person with a disability.

Suffering a personal injury can be a life-altering experience, leaving victims grappling with physical, emotional, and financial challenges. In times of distress, having a reliable legal partner can make all the difference. Our law firm is committed to helping personal injury victims find the support and justice they deserve. In this blog post, we'll outline key considerations for those who have experienced a personal injury and how our dedicated team can provide assistance.

Understanding Your Rights: Personal injury victims often face uncertainties about their rights and legal options. Our law firm is here to guide you through the process, ensuring you have a clear understanding of your rights and the potential avenues for seeking compensation.

Comprehensive Legal Support: From gathering evidence to negotiating with insurance companies, our legal team provides comprehensive support at every stage. We understand the complexities of personal injury cases and work diligently to build a strong case on your behalf.

Navigating the Claims Process: The claims process can be daunting, especially for those dealing with injuries. Our experienced attorneys streamline the process, handling paperwork, communication with insurers, and legal complexities, allowing you to focus on your recovery.

Maximizing Compensation: Our goal is to help you secure the maximum compensation possible. We assess the full extent of your damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, to build a compelling case that reflects the true impact of the injury on your life.

No Win, No Fee: We understand the financial strain personal injuries can impose. That's why our law firm operates on a contingency fee basis – you only pay if we win your case. This ensures access to quality legal representation without adding to the financial burden during an already challenging time.

Compassionate Advocacy: Beyond legal expertise, we provide compassionate advocacy. We recognize the emotional toll of personal injuries and strive to offer empathetic support to our clients throughout the legal process.

If you've been a victim of a personal injury, know that you don't have to navigate the recovery journey alone. Our law firm is dedicated to standing by your side, providing expert legal guidance, and fighting for the justice and compensation you deserve. Reach out to us today for a consultation and let us help you take the first steps towards healing and recovery.