After long legal battle over over a disabled access lawsuit, Basketball Town Shoots Last Hoop

Basketball Town Shoots Last Hoop

After a long legal battle over over a disabled access lawsuit, Basketball Town in Rancho Cordova was forced to close its doors Sunday.

"This place has done a lot for us," said Karen Cedres of the Solano County Hurricanes youth basketball league. "It keeps them (kids) of the streets. They enjoy it here...and I can't understand why they would shut it down."

According to Basketball Town's marketing and events director Crystal Chodes, the fight against the lawsuit forced them out of business.

"We're talking about $100,000 in attorney fees," said Chodes. "That money could've gone to other program. It's a shame."

Derrick Ross, a Solano County resident, filed a lawsuit against the facility last year after attending his nephew's party. In court documents, Ross, a quadriplegic, claims the place didn't have the proper disabled parking and he couldn't take part in his nephew's party because there isn't an elevator or a lift to access the upstairs level. The six-year-old's party was held at the mezzanine inside the complex.

Basketball Town officials told News10 they moved the party downstairs.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=33339

The video linked at the article says lawyers for both sides will meet today (Monday) in hopes of making an amicable bargain.

The plaintiff has a history of such suits, and sadly the video alluded to the possibility his efforts may be more for money than access.

I have a relative who makes his "living" blackmailing small business owners in ADA scams.

making the only way to get a business to comply is by suing. Another unfortunate consequence, is that too many PDWs (and their attornies)are too eager to make money, while using access as a reason.

In this case, and after reading another article about it http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/282715.html , IMHO it is the latter.

If the plantiff wanted to sue for compliance, he wouldn't be asking for damages. What damages could he have incurred by not being able to attend a birthday party?

Having said that, I believe that any public business that was built after the ADA was enacted, should have wheelchair accessible bathrooms. There is no excuse to not having the blueprints include ADA compliance.

I have to always call ahead to find out if a place is accessible. If they are not, I will not go and I tell them why I won't be giving their business my money.

At the end, the plaintiff's lawyer said "All they have to do is agree to put in a lift so that disabled people can use (the facility) just the same as everyone else, and we'll be happy to talk about settlement." To me, that indicates that the damages sought are for leverage and not an actual goal.

it states:

The suit, filed by an Oakland attorney who is believed to be the nation's longest-practicing access attorney, seeks to bring the facility into compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and asks for unspecified monetary damages.

Monetary damages does not equal compliance. If he was seeking only a lift, then why the unspecified monetary damages?

The article you linked to is the one that said he'd talk about a settlement if the elevator was put in.

Also, from what I understand, the damages that are being sued for are a peculiarity of California state law, not the ADA.

the "peculiarity of California state law"?

That doesn't make sense to me. How can then lawsuit be about ADA compliance, but the damages not?

Have you heard/read what his damages are? I can't imagine how not being able to attend a birthday party accrues damages.

My concern is that the plantiff is another Diane zum Brunnen (the woman that sued Clint Eastwood).

Story about a different person's lawsuit. The article does a really good job of explaining both peculiarities of California disability law and the inadequacies of enforcement at a local level.

http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles/2004/06/12/news/news10.txt

If communities would enforce ADA standards on new businesses and remodels as they occur, instead of hoping that no one will notice that a 17-year old civil rights law is being ignored, there'd be a lot fewer suits. Mr. Ross may have brought other suits, but it is not unusual for most ADA suits to be brought by a handful of activists who are already familiar with the legal system. As long as the only enforcement mechanism is law suits, law suits will continue to be brought.