Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.

Jared Molski (plaintiff) was paralyzed from the chest down and used a wheelchair for mobility. Molski filed an estimated 400 federal lawsuits against businesses in California for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California state laws. Many of Molski’s suits were filed within a few days of one another and alleged that Molski suffered nearly identical injuries in each business’s facilities, sometimes claiming that Molski suffered multiple injuries in the same day at different establishments. Molski was consistently represented by counsel in all suits and settled all but one of his cases. Thomas E. Frankovich, a Professional Law Corporation (Frankovich) (plaintiff) represented Molski in several lawsuits. Molski stopped at a Mandarin Touch Restaurant (defendant), a business of Evergreen Dynasty Corporation (defendant), and suffered hand injuries while moving his wheelchair through the bathroom’s narrow doorway. Represented by Frankovich, Molski filed suit against the restaurant for violating the ADA and California’s laws. The restaurant petitioned the district court to declare Molski a vexatious litigant and force him to obtain court permission before filing any ADA complaints. Molski and Frankovich were allowed to respond. The district court analyzed Molski’s history of litigation, motivations for litigating, history of representation, and potential burdening of the court system and considered whether a prefiling order was the only adequate protection for the courts and other parties. The court found that because Molski’s many lawsuits alleged nearly identical facts and injuries, including 13 identical injuries suffered in a five-day period, Molski was lying in his complaints. The court also found that Molski filed the suits in bad faith to seek settlements because he filed California state-law claims that allowed for money damages not available under the ADA. Additionally, the court found that Molski was always represented by counsel and had placed an undue burden on the courts with his number of claims. The court labelled Molski a vexatious litigant and issued a prefiling order for him and for Frankovich as to all ADA claims, finding that Frankovich had filed similar complaints with false factual allegations. Molski and Frankovich appealed to the Ninth Circuit.