Disabled Man's Suits Restricted

Most people never file a single suit in federal court. Jarek Molski of Woodland Hills has filed 400.

Now, a federal judge, accusing Molski of a "scheme of systematic extortion," wants to shut him down.

Since 1998, a decade after a motorcycle accident left him in a wheelchair, Molski, now 34, has made something of a career of suing restaurants, wineries, bowling alleys, banks and other businesses throughout the state, accusing them of violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In three separate suits filed last year, for example, Molski, a law school graduate, claimed to have suffered identical injuries at three restaurants, all on May 20, 2003 -- "highly unusual, to say the least," U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie wrote in a decision issued Thursday.

Molski routinely asks for damages of $4,000 per day for each day a facility is not brought into compliance with the disabilities law, then agrees to a cash settlement, the judge said, adding that "Molski's M.O. is clear: sue, settle and move on to the next suit."

This year though, the Mandarin Touch restaurant in Solvang fought back after being sued by Molski. The restaurant's lawyer, Robert H. Appert of San Gabriel, accused Molski of abusing the disabilities law.

The judge agreed, saying Molski was "misusing a noble law" and trying to "harass and intimidate business owners."

With that, Rafeedie issued an order labeling Molski a "vexatious litigant" -- someone who files lawsuits "maliciously and without good cause."

The order means Molski can no longer file suits under the disabilities act without seeking permission from a judge, who has to be informed of Rafeedie's order when the suit is lodged.

It is highly unusual for a federal judge to declare someone a vexatious litigant, according to legal experts, and some praised the ruling by Rafeedie, who was appointed to the bench by President Reagan.

Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan said the ruling, though rare, made "perfect sense," adding, "you don't want to create a backlash against" the disabilities law by allowing litigants to misuse it.

But not all legal experts were applauding.

Eve L. Hill, a visiting professor of law at Loyola Law School, called the decision "outrageous."

"To label someone a vexatious litigant because he has a disability, and these restaurants are out of compliance, really discourages someone from enforcing their rights," said Hill, who also is executive director of the Western Law Center for Disability Rights.