Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

February 10, 2005 Issue      By: Raymond Coates

Civil Procedure - Declaration of Vexatious Litigant

Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant

United States District Court, Central District of California

(December 9, 2025)

This Federal court case deals with the question of when does a professional plaintiff become a vexatious litigant.  Plaintiff Jarek Molski is a physically disabled gentleman who relies on a wheelchair for ambulation.  On January 25, 2003, Mr. Molski claimed to have visited Defendant Mandarin Touch Restaurant in Solvang, California.  After dinner, Molski alleged that he used the restroom, but found the entrance to be too narrow. Plaintiff further claimed that as he attempted to leave the restroom, his hand became caught in a door causing injury. 

Mr. Molski filed suit against the restaurant, claiming violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq.  Under the ADA, Molski asked for injunctive relief to bring the restaurant up to ADA standards.  Plaintiff also brought state law claims for damages, pursuant to California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil Code section 51(f)) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code section 54(c)). 

After the complaint had been served, Defendant Mandarin Touch Restaurant filed a motion with the court to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant.  Defendant asked the court to order Molski to obtain leave of court before filing any other claims under the ADA.  In its motion, Defendant brought out that Plaintiff had filed between 300 and 400 prior ADA lawsuits.  Most of the lawsuits involved similar facts.  Molski would visit a business; attempt to use the business; and then inevitably, would suffer some minor physical injury.  In these lawsuits, Molski would seek not only injunctive relief, but also damages and attorney fees.  The Court noted that plaintiff filed 13 separate complaints for essentially identical injuries sustained over a four-day period in May 2003. 

In deciding the motion, the court had to answer the question of whether a litigant who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties.  To answer the question, the court looked at five factors: (1) the litigant's history of litigation; (2) the litigant's motive in pursuing the subject lawsuit; (3) whether Molski was represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the parties.

A vexatious suit is a lawsuit instituted maliciously and without good cause.  Even though it was possible that some of the businesses Molski sued may have had ADA violations, this fact was outweighed by the Court's finding that Molski acted in bad faith.  The Court particularly focused on the 13 complaints relating to incidents occurring over four days in May 2003.  Plaintiff claimed identical injuries in those suits, which the court found not to be credible.  

With regard to motivation, the court pointed to the fact that plaintiff always asserted state law claims, which allowed for the recovery of money damages by a private individual — something the ADA does not provide for.  The court determined plaintiff's motivation was to extract cash settlements in these cases.   While courts are generally protective of pro se plaintiffs,  Molski was always represented by counsel, which also weighed against him.  Finally, the court found that its resources were being burdened and that sanctions less severe than a pre-filing order would not be effective.  The Court, therefore, found plaintiff's action to be a sham, granted defendant's motion, and declared Molski to be a vexatious litigant.  As a result, Molski is now required to seek leave of court each time he plans to file an ADA lawsuit.  

Comment

The District Court noted that plaintiffs, such as Molski, are not unique.  There are many individuals and lawyers  who are filing frivolous lawsuits invoking civil rights or unfair business practices claims.   A motion to declare a professional plaintiff a vexatious litigant and the use of a pre-filing order can protect defendants and their insurance carriers from vexatious litigation.  

____
To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission.  Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM.  The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.