Tuesday, August 12, 2008

D'Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge (9th Cir. - Aug. 12, 2008)

It's yet another case -- indeed, the second one today (the first one is here) -- involving a repeat ADA plaintiff. The district court thought that plaintiff wasn't credible. Neither do I.

Whether the particular record here is clear enough to so find is a matter of dispute between the majority opinion (written by Judge Reinhardt) and the partial dissent (written by Judge Rymer), and I think that both positions in this regard are reasonable.

But I'm nonetheelss left with a firm and definite belief -- rightly or wrongly -- that the plaintiff here will say whatever needs to be said in order to obtain damages and fees.

Do some social benefits result from ADA mills? Sure. Are there social costs as well? Definitely. Underlying the credibility dispute between the majority and dissent is, I believe, a similar dispute about whether the former outweighs the latter.

Read the opinion and decide for yourself whether you think plaintiff's telling the truth when she says she intends to go back to the Best Western Encina.