Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Your client's restaurants violate the ADA and state law.
No they don't.
The expert we jointly selected and who is a court-appointed special master says they do.
We object to his methodology.
But you observed his methodology before agreeing to him.
We object to his methodology.
But we have photographs of your client observing his methodology.
I don't care. We object to his methodology.
You had the opportunity to object but did not object to many of his measurements.
I don't care. Your claims are moot.
Judge Jenkins held that our claims are not moot.
I don't care. Your claims are moot.
Judge Hamilton gave you an extra year and then held that our claims are not moot.
I don't care, your claims are moot.
Every time we go into your client's restaurants, we find more violations.
I don't care. Your claims are moot.
Even if our ADA claims are moot, our state law claims are not.
I don't care. Your claims are moot.
Even if the court dismisses our claims for lack of jurisdiction, we will bring our damages claims in state court.
I don't care. Your claims are moot.
By continuing to argue that our claims are moot, you have permitted us to gather evidence of six years of ongoing violations.
The damages will be enormous.
I don't care.
And your failed litigation strategy ensures that damages will continue to increase.
I don't care.
In fact, the damages are tens of millions of dollars higher than when you first started on the case.
I don't care.
And that is in addition to the fees you have been charging your client all these years.
I don't care.
I don't care.
And of course the fees we have incurred to respond to your litigation antics.
and repeated unsuccessful mootness arguments.
I don't care.
You are our annuity. Thank you.