Jeff Givens wrote:Florida has a vexatious litigants law, but it only applies to people who pursue their cases themselves (pro se).
Marshall wrote:If they have sued so many property owners in your community, it may be in your interests to work together and hire a single firm to fight this. One issue that should be looked at is whether an individual plaintiff has standing to sue businesses that he has never visited or planned to visit.
td wrote:I am thinking about being real stupid and defending myself Pro Se just so I can be sure that when I get f*&%ed I least don't have to pay 2 lawyers. One thing I have already learned is that some lawyers cannot understand the meaning of words such as: or, and, if and existing- god only knows how many more complex words trip them up.
td wrote:As for making lemonade out of lemons... I do not know if I really want my name in the local paper fighting over the unfairness of the ADA to small businesses. That discussion could easily spin out of control and these guys are good at making themselves out to be crusaders for the handi-capped while making the offending property owners look like wheelchair tippers. Unlike some members of this forum I do not believe that any press is necessarily good press. I do think I may write a story in the trade press about my experience, not that helps business in anyway. Wait till you see the pictures, though! Jackhammers, concrete, paint, Oh!My!
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has upheld the extortion conviction of a lawyer who threatened to sue a Concord hair salon for charging women more money for haircuts than men or children.
Daniel Hynes is identified as a Manchester lawyer and a 2006 graduate of the Western New England College School of Law in a story published by the Concord Monitor in March last year. A jury convicted him of theft by extortion after deliberating for only 1 ½ hours. The story quoted Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Baker, who said Hynes had sent letters to at least 19 salons in the state.
The conviction was based on a letter Hynes sent in December 2006 to Claudia’s Signature Salon accusing the shop of violating laws barring gender and age discrimination. The letter demanded $1,000 to avoid litigation and gave the salon owner 10 days to comply, according to the New Hampshire Supreme Court opinion (PDF) issued on Wednesday.
However, Hynes had never visited the salon and did not have a client complaining of discriminatory pricing. As a result, he did not have standing to pursue a claim under the state’s Consumer Protection Act, according to the court.
The salon owner’s husband complained to the attorney general, who sent an investigator posing as a business partner to settlement discussions. Hynes was arrested after agreeing to a $500 settlement.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests