Weighty claims require that claimants present their grievances deliberately.
A serious presentation ordinarily includes (1) signaling that one has a grievance, (2) offering a chance for a negotiated resolution, and only later (3) letting others know that one might seek recourse to the courts if negotiations should prove unproductive.
(This last point only applies if one can prosecute a cause of action; bluffing beyond one’s means is a fool’s gambit.)
One reads of a lawsuit against the City of Whitewater for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, for a claimed failure to provide wheelchair access in parts of the city. The plaintiff, Amy Bleile, is a former Miss Wheelchair Wisconsin. She’s retained an attorney from Birmingham, Alabama who has filed suit on her behalf in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, seated in Milwaukee.
Quick searching shows the case to be captioned as Amy Bleile, Plaintiff, vs City of Whitewater, Wisconsin, docketed at 2:13-cv-942, and filed on 8.20.2013. (I’ve no connection to this plaintiff or to her attorney; I only became aware of the lawsuit yesterday from the article to which I’ve linked, below.)
Oddly, one also reads that neither Plaintiff, Amy Bleile, nor her attorney, Michael A. Chester, contacted the city before filing their federal lawsuit.
From the Daily Union, 8.22.13:
Chester said neither he nor Bleile contacted city officials about the alleged ADA violations before filing the suit, which seeks no damages, but contains a court order requiring the city to remove the barriers to accessibility downtown and at Starin Park.
“We hope the city will collaborate with us, reach an agreement to get the barriers removed in a reasonable amount of time,’ he said.
That’s absurd, really: Attorney Chester makes no effort at discussion before filing suit, but then insists afterward that he’s seeking mere collaboration.
Perhaps lawyers practicing from Alabama define collaboration differently from people in the other forty-nine states of America.
To file suit without prior (close-in-time) contact to a target defendant is a poor practice.
This is apparently inexplicable; there are precious few times one rushes to court without approaching the other side beforehand.
Yet, if one looks at the complaint, one finds that although the Ms. Bleile is seeking only changes in accommodations (actions, not money), her out-of-state attorney is seeking fees for litigating the case, from the City of Whitewater, to be awarded by the court. From Plaintiff’s Complaint, in both Counts I (Paragraph 26) and II (Paragraph 33) one sees a request
….That the Court award reasonable attorney’s fees, costs (including expert fees) and other expenses of suit, to the Plaintiff….
Suing without contacting currently-serving city officials affords plaintiff’s counsel a chance to demand court-awarded attorney’s fees to which he would not be entitled if he had given the City of Whitewater a chance to resolve the case through contact and negotiation before litigation.
The federal dockets also show that five such lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Plaintiff, Amy Bleile, against different defendants, in either the Eastern or Western Districts of Wisconsin. (The first case listed is now closed.)
1 Bleile, Amy (pla) wiedce 2:2013-cv-00636 446 06/06/2013 08/19/2013 Bleile v. Bavaria Equities 1107 LLC
2 Bleile, Amy (pla) wiedce 2:2013-cv-00942 446 08/20/2013 Bleile v. Whitewater, Wisconsin, City of
3 Bleile, Amy (pla) wiwdce 3:2013-cv-00398 446 06/06/2013. Bleile, Amy v. Otis Holdings, LLC
4 Bleile, Amy (pla) wiwdce 3:2013-cv-00399 446 06/06/2013 Bleile, Amy v. Southern Wisconsin Foods Real Estate Holding Company, LLC
5 Bleile, Amy (pla) wiwdce 3:2013-cv-00589 446 08/20/2013. Bleile, Amy v. GE Capital Franchise Finance Corporation
Disability-access claims are serious ones that should not be filed without advance warning. Supposed, unaddressed concerns do not obviate the reasonable step of contacting currently-serving city officials. One has reason to look askance at no-prior-warning lawsuits.
All people should enjoy access to our city.
Non-conformity with federal disability law should, where found, be remedied promptly; plaintiffs’ attorneys who commence lawsuits without prior opportunity for resolution should be undeserving of court-awarded fees.
Thanks for a good analysis. It’s a reasonable take.
I have read your site for years.During that time it’s obvious that you have become one of the dominant if not the dominant political voice in town. (Sorry but there is no one writing in Whitewater who comes close to your website’s quality. Agree or disagree on issues this is the best in town.)
Keep up the good work.
Thank you for your kind and generous words. There’s always room for improvement – and I’ll happily keep going.