United African-Asian Abilities Club: 2015

Saturday 12 December 2015

Access Yes Award

The UAAAC desires to recognize businesses that voluntarily comply with the access laws without a lawsuit or government involvement. It is very important for businesses to voluntarily comply with the laws. The UAAAC believes that there are many businesses that quietly comply with the laws but receive no recognition. Therefore, the UAAAC created the Access Yes Award to recognize businesses that are making a good faith effort to be accessible to all.

On December 13, 2015, the following businesses received the Access Yes Award:

LA Rentals

3251 W 6th St Ste 109

Los Angeles, CA 90020

The Vermont

3150 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Wednesday 21 October 2015

Access Yes Award

On October 22, 2015, the following businesses received the Access Yes Award:

Best Western Burbank Airport Inn

7615 Lankershim Blvd,

North Hollywood, CA 91605

Colony Inn North Hollywood

4917 Vineland Ave,

North Hollywood, CA 91601

Comfort Inn & Suites LAX Airport Inglewood - Los Angeles

4922 W Century Blvd,

Inglewood, CA 90304

Corona Motel

845 E Manchester Ave,

Los Angeles, CA 90001

Holiday Inn Express & Suites Los Angeles Downtown West

611 South Westlake Avenue,

Los Angeles, CA 90057

Mikado Hotel

12600 Riverside Dr,

North Hollywood, CA 91607

SUPER 8 LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN

1341 W Sunset Blvd,

Hwy 101 Exit Alvarado St,

Los Angeles, CA 90026

Friday 18 September 2015

Access Yes Award

1164 Glendale Galleria Way,

Glendale, CA 91210

2. Brand 158

158 S Brand Blvd,

Glendale, CA 91204

UAAAC MISSIONS

UNITED AFRICAN-ASIAN ABILITIES CLUB (hereinafter referred to as UAAAC, Club or Association) is an organization that advocates on the behalf of its members with different conditions when their civil rights and liberties have been violated. ‎The Club or Association is an international group started in 2011. One of its core mission is to reduce charitable or public assistance dependence by people with mental and physical conditions by promoting business and employment opportunities. Another critical mission of the Club is to provide written testimony concerning proposed laws related to people with conditions. Further, another core mission of the Association is to provide counseling and referral housing services to minorities with sight, mental, hearing and physical conditions. Achieving this mission is frustrated by the rampant violations of the fair housing laws. In fact, the Association started its mission in 2011. It is futile for the most part. Another core mission of Association is searching for accessible businesses and giving awards to them. These businesses include apartments. As in Smith, 358 F.3d 1105, a further mission of the group is to eliminate disability discrimination. These missions are not abstract social interests of the Club.

Sunday 16 August 2015

THE ABLEIST WILL GUT ADA

THEODORE ARTHUR PINNOCK

AKA

ARTHUR CHARLES DAWKINS LEE

Blk 4 Lot 10 Phase 4

Carmona Estates

Carmona

4116 Cavite PHILIPPINES

Phone: 415.513.0859

Fax: (619) 858-3338

http://theodorearthurpinnockjd.blogspot.com

tpinnock62@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper is about the Ableist's subconscious movement to gut civil rights laws for people with capabilities (people with a condition that is different than the majority).

Dependency

I assert that Ableist financial policies create dependency for people with capabilities. I argue financial dependency is the underlining reason that human rights for people with capabilities have failed. The fault of this failure lies with the complacency and social irresponsibility of people with capabilities and the welfare Ableist.

Republicans Individual Responsibility And Capability

I assert that the Republicans have supported independent living through fiscal conservatism, federalism and liberalism since before the American Civil War. The central theme behind these concepts is individual responsibility. They supported independent living for the slaves. The Republicans see people as capable of self-support and determination with little government aid or intrusion. This ideology includes people with capabilities.

Long-term Welfare

Charity or private welfare started before the year 1000 for the blind, deaf and people with physical differences. The Ableist has supported a safety net through redistribution of income starting in 1933 and expanded in the 1960's. This safety net was essential to the independent living movement for people with capabilities.

But now this safety net public policy costs the taxpayer billions of dollars while making people with capabilities desirous of avoiding the struggle of the individual and social responsibility called earning a living.

All things be equal, most people will accept goods and services for free if given a choice. This is why in most Holy Texts, God requires people to work for food. God does not give us food for free to avoid creating dependency and laziness.

However, having a medical condition can be a seductive reason to justify not working and accepting free goods and services. But in most cases the medical condition is not the true the reason for not wanting to work. The true reason is people, for the most part, would avoid work if they can obtain free goods and services unless they have a burning desire to achieve.

In general, I was a Republican in the 1980's because I am a fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatives believe most tax dollars are wasted on government social programs that make people hate work and make them dependent.

ADA

The seeds of the Americans With Disabilities Act - ADA germinated during fiscal conservative President Reagan's administration. The ADA is not the only human rights law for people with capabilities. The belief was that our nation could reduce tax dollars for Social Security Income and welfare by granting civil rights to people with capabilities fostering individual responsibility, self-help, self-reliance, independence and free market employment. Reagan believed in promoting the work ethic and entrepreneur spirit through the free market economy, which would reduce welfare dependency.

President Bush I harvested Reagan's seeds of independence by passing ADA. The ADA was passed to combat the enemies of independence:

1. Disability unemployment - the ADA assumes that the vast majority of people with capabilities are capable of gainful employment, irrespective of their functional limitations, and that the primary impediments to their obtaining and maintaining a job are environmental barriers, such as inaccessible workplaces, and attitudinal barriers, such as employer prejudice against disability. Experience has demonstrated that people with very significant functional limitations, such as high-level quadriplegic and respirator dependence, have been able to work if given appropriate training and support. However, disability unemployment is at 80%.

2. Environmental barriers - ADA was intended to remove transportation, service and physical barriers in the public and private sectors. As of this writing such barriers still existence in abundance.

3. Altitudinal Barriers - When ADA was passed the main issue was the manner in which others perceived with people with capabilities as not "able.” This barrier still exists but there is a more insidious barrier - the self-dependency welfare barriers. This barrier requires people with capabilities to prove they are not "able" so that they qualify for Social Security Income.

The original purpose of social programs was to provide a short-term safety net while folks develop skills to work. I benefited from such programs and I became a taxpayer, and not a tax user in 1989. However, the programs did not require me to work to get free money. I just had to be poor and disabled. My desire to struggle work was given to me by my Jamaican Father and Black American Mother.

I contend that most people desire all the benefits of society without having the burdens of earning the benefits. God and nature forces us to act to receive benefits. Further, God makes it difficult to act - the work struggle. Giving away benefits for free removes the struggle to work unless there is a love of work. So welfare kills the need to struggle to work.

California Ableist

California Ableist believes in “helping” the “disabled” through government assistance. This "helping" paradigm is derived from the ideas of sin, suffering and charity related to "monsters." Monster Theory included people with physical or mental differences. Monsters require charity for their sin and suffering. This help paradigm is ancient and is embedded in the subconscious minds of people.

So in California human rights laws for people with capabilities are treated as help laws. In 1968 such laws were passed then amended to add stringent enforcement provisions. In 2008 and 2012 California started reducing the enforcement provisions. As of this Article Ableist are attempting to reduce enforcement further. Why?

The reason relates to the charity rule - no one is required to give help. Human rights lawsuits should not force people to help the “disabled.”

Conclusion

On April 30, 2012, I freed a 19 year ago girl with one leg. She was locked in subconscious disability mental slavery. I unlocked the key to her prison. The girl is attractive, hard working and smart - college material.

On August 11, 2015, she told me she deliberately became pregnant and she wanted a child without a man or husband. I was mad. But this was partly my doing. I taught her she had the right to decide her life. She decided a path I disfavored. The Ableist wants to take away her right to be single mother with one leg.

No matter how many human rights laws are passed, people with capabilities will never be freed until we stop the Ableist subconscious mind.

Sunday 9 August 2015

Differential Familiarity

Differential Familiarity

THEODORE ARTHUR PINNOCK

AKA

ARTHUR CHARLES DAWKINS LEE

Blk 4 Lot 10 Phase 4

Carmona Estates

Carmona

4116 Cavite PHILIPPINES

Phone: 415.513.0859

Fax: (619) 858-3338

http://theodorearthurpinnockjd.blogspot.com

tpinnock62@gmail.com

August 10, 2015

Abstract

This short paper introduces differential familiarity as a method of reducing cognitive dissonance Ableist feel towards people with capabilities (people with a condition that is different than the majority).

A Small Mountain

I live on a small mountain. There are steep paved roads and sidewalks everywhere. On this beautiful mountain there are four developments: a residential community[1], a commercial shopping center, a horse racing track[2] and a casino.[3] This mountain is located in Carmona, Cavite Philippines. [4]

The residential and commercial areas are built on the mountain slopes. The racetrack and casino are built on the bottom of the slopeless mountain. I regularly wheel around the steep slopes alone. I do business with the racetrack. I rarely go to the casino, and when I do, I go with my wife.

On August 8, 2015, I wanted to be safely alone. Emphasis on "safely." I am from the United States. I am use to going alone. However, foreigners living in any different country must be diligent as to safety.

I wore a shirt and tie then headed towards the casino. On my way down the first slope a resident security guard asked if I wanted cooperative assistance.[5] (In the Jewish and Christian belief systems, Adam was alone with animals. Eve was created to give Adam reciprocal mutual cooperative assistance. Humans are born helpless. This helpless limit is overcome by cooperative assistance. Using the same Judo-Christian SSCD backdrop, Satan helped Eve with her desire to be curious. This is superior inferior assistance. Slavery and the prefix "Dis" derived their origins from the superior inferior assistance model of humanity.) I consented.

We went down three slopes. Before going down the fourth and last slope, he asked where was I going. I told him the casino. He radioed in something about Sir Pinnock (me) then and assisted me down the slope. I pushed myself to the racetrack. The head guard greeted me. I stay there for a while then went to the casino entrance and the guard refused to let me in.

Note, the residential area is not accessible to persons using wheelchairs. The casino is completely accessible. So why was I discriminated against at the accessible facility? - Differential Familiarity.

Differential familiarity reduces cognitive dissonance, which refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors.[6] Differential familiarity or reduction[7] is when a different external stimulus enters the brain, it is initially responded with fear and apprehension, but after repeatedly perceiving the stimulus the subconscious brain becomes more familiar with the stimulus. The subconscious mind likes familiarity and comparative familiarly (cognitive fluency[8]). Comparative familiarity is when the different stimulus to stored information in a person’s brain, an external brain or external source.

Differential familiarity explains the variance in the behavior of the security guards. The resident guards regularly see a Black guy in a wheelchair push up and down steep slope without assistance. The racetrack security knew this Black guy from prior business dealings. So both were familiar with my differently handsome features and capabilities.

However, the casino guard never saw a good-looking Black man in a wheelchair. Fear possessed his brain. He called his boss. The boss stated I needed a companion. I pretended to be violently angry. I found controlled anger is far more effective than rational reasoning. I also texted my worker to translate. Four people told me I needed a companion. I said I would sue everyone. They agreed to let me in. I was not done making their subconscious minds familiar with me. I demanded 100,000 pesos or free drinks. They gave me free drinks!

[1] http://www.canyonranch.com.ph/

[2] http://manilajockey.com/

[3] http://manilajockey.com/casino/main

[4] http://carmonagov.net/home/

[5] In law this requires a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration. http://www.cs.xu.edu/~osborn/main/lawSchool/contractsHtml/bottomScreens/Briefs/Restatement%2017.%20Requirement%20of%20A%20Bargain.htm

[6] In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press. Festinger, L. (1962). "Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American 207 (4): 93–107. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93.

[7] Reducing: Cognitive dissonance theory is founded on the assumption that individuals seek consistency between their expectations and their reality. Because of this, people engage in a process called dissonance reduction to bring their cognitions and actions in line with one another. This creation of uniformity allows for a lessening of psychological tension and distress. According to Festinger, dissonance reduction can be achieved in four ways. In an example case where a person has adopted the attitude that they will no longer eat high fat food, but eats a high-fat doughnut, the four methods of reduction are:

1. Change behavior or cognition ("I will not eat any more of this doughnut")

2. Justify behavior or cognition by changing the conflicting cognition ("I'm allowed to cheat every once in a while")

3. Justify behavior or cognition by adding new cognitions ("I'll spend 30 extra minutes at the gym to work this off")

4. Ignore or deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs ("This doughnut is not high in fat")

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.

[8] Cognitive Fluency: Even though it may be at a subconscious level, people are affected by how easy or difficult it is to think about something. Not surprisingly, it turns out that people prefer things that are easy to think about rather than things that are difficult to think about. This feeling of ease or difficulty is known as cognitive fluency. Cognitive fluency refers to the subjective experience of the ease or difficulty of completing a mental task. It refers not to the mental process itself, but rather the feeling people associate with the process. Fluency is important because of its power and influence over how we think about things and exerts its power in primarily two ways: its subtlety and its pervasiveness. Fluency guides our thinking in situations where we have no idea that it is at work, and it affects us in any situation where we weigh information. The full force of its power comes from the fact that we often misattribute the sensation of ease or difficulty in thinking about something to the thing itself.

- See more at: http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2011/07/how-cognitive-fluency-affects-decision-making.php#sthash.0vX3KlYB.dpuf

Sunday 12 July 2015

Your Phone Call to Save Disability Rights

The Oppressors

Monday 29 June 2015

Access Yes Award

1. Avalon at Riverwalk

4655 Sierra Vista Avenue,

Riverside 92505

2. Bar Verde

889 Americana Way,

Glendale 91210

3. Best Shawarma

602 W Glenoaks Bl,

Glendale 91202

4. Brand Grill

1200 S. Brand Bl,

Glendale 91205

5. Burger Boss

2585 Canyon Springs Pkwy,

Riverside 92507

6. Comfort Inn

2201 Hotel Circle S,

San Diego 92108

Access Yes Awards

423 N Brand Blvd,

Glendale, CA 91203

2. America's Tire

4817 E Ramon Rd,

Palm Springs, CA 92264

3. Americas Best Value Inn

625 E 5th St,

Beaumont, CA 92223

4. Army Navy Surplus Value Center

3828 W Sunset Blvd,

Los Angeles, CA 90026

Tuesday 23 June 2015

Access Yes Awards

2575 Clairemont Drive

San Diego CA. 92117

2. Best Western Plus Island Palms

2051 Shelter Island Drive

San Diego CA. 92106

3. Boulder Creek Apartment Homes

2442 Iowa Avenue

Riverside CA. 92507

Monday 25 May 2015

Collection of Cases Where the ADA Defense Lawyer was Sanctioned for Deliberately Delaying the Case

Defense ADA Counsel Deliberately Delays Case for Profit

United States District Court,

S.D. California.

Chris LANGER, Plaintiff,

v.

Scott McHALE; Linda Carpenter; and Does 1–10, Defendants.

Civil No. 13cv2721 CAB (NLS).

Signed Aug. 6, 2014.

ORDER:

(1) DETERMINING JOINT MOTION FOR RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE;

(2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT TO CONDUCT HIS INSPECTION ACCORDING TO DEFENDANTS' METHODOLOGY; and

(3) SETTING AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED ON DEFENSE COUNSEL.

NITA L. STORMES, United States Magistrate Judge.

*1 Plaintiff Chris Langer filed this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related California laws. He alleges that defendants Linda Carpenter, who owns and operates the store Urban Barn, and landlord Scott McHale, who owns the store property and leases it to Ms. Carpenter, did not maintain a handicap-accessible parking space in the parking lot for the store. Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment with the district judge, arguing there is no case or controversy to adjudicate.

Before this court is a discovery motion where Defendants seek to compel the Plaintiff's expert to use a certain methodology to conduct a site inspection on Plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff intends to use the expert report on the site inspection in support of a substantive opposition to the summary judgment motion.

The court has reviewed all filings in this case, and for the following reasons, DENIES Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff's expert to conduct his inspection according to Defendants' methodology, and sets an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why SANCTIONS should not be imposed on defense counsel.

Relevant Background.

After Defendants filed their summary judgment motion, they filed an answer and consequently, this court set an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE). The ENE notice stayed formal discovery and ordered a personal meet and confer at the subject premises to discuss the alleged premise violations and damages, costs and attorney's fees. Defendants then filed a motion to continue the date of the personal meet and confer to June 25, 2014, the same day as Plaintiff's expert's site inspection, continue the hearing on the summary judgment motion to allow Plaintiff's counsel to incorporate the information from the inspection into his summary judgment opposition, and vacate the ENE pending a decision on the summary judgment motion. [Dkt. No. 20.] The court granted the ex parte motion in its entirety. [Dkt. No. 21.]

Then, on June 20, 2014, Defendants filed an 89–page “objection” to Plaintiff's site inspection set for June 25 that the Defendants admittedly expected and said they were amenable to. [Dkt. No. 20, p .2; Dkt. No. 23.] The court struck the objection from the docket for failure to follow the proper chambers procedures. [Dkt. No. 25.]

Defendants then unilaterally terminated the June 25 site inspection. Next, they filed an ex parte application asking that the site meeting be continued until either (1) an ENE is eventually rescheduled (if Plaintiff survives summary judgment); or (2) if the court orders the site inspection to occur—following resolution of a discovery dispute—that the counsel meeting occur at that time. [Dkt. No. 26.] Plaintiff filed an opposition, asking that the court either hold an ENE or direct the parties to hold their Rule 26(f) conference and open discovery.

On June 27, 2014, this court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' application to further modify the ENE order. [Dkt. No. 29.] That order constituted the third order addressing Defendants' and defense counsel's complaints about Plaintiff's proposed site inspection. To resolve the recurring dispute, the court ordered the following:

*2 • Granted Defendants' request to continue the meeting of counsel to take place at the same time as Plaintiff's site inspection.

• Granted Plaintiff's request and lifted the stay on formal discovery.

• Ordered counsel to meet and confer in person by July 7, 2014 to resolve their discovery dispute. The dispute concerns Defendants' objections to the methodology Plaintiff's expert proposes to use for the site inspection.

• If counsel could not resolve the dispute on their own, ordered them to file a joint discovery motion no longer than 10 pages and with no exhibits by July 11, 2014.

• Reminded counsel of their obligation to cooperate under Civil Local Rule 83.4 pursuant to the court's Code of Conduct.

June 27 Order [Dkt. No. 29].

Counsel met in person to confer on the discovery dispute on July 2, 2014. Plaintiff thought they resolved the issue because they signed a stipulation that if Plaintiff would find that a particular slope was not compliant and the slope measurement could be fairly taken with a 24 inch level, Plaintiff's expert would measure with the 24 inch level, as Defendants request. Because they apparently resolved the dispute, counsel did not file a joint discovery motion by the court-ordered deadline, July 11, 2014.

The site inspection was reset for July 16, the same day Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment motion was due. But Defendants unilaterally terminated the site inspection (for the second time), told Plaintiff that even though they signed a stipulation they had in fact not resolved the dispute, and demanded that this joint discovery motion be filed. The parties filed the joint motion on July 16—the same day the inspection was to take place—and five days after the court-ordered deadline.

On August 4, 2014, Judge Bencivengo granted Plaintiff's request to continue the hearing on the summary judgment motion. She said she would entertain a joint request to reschedule the hearing after this discovery dispute is resolved and any required discovery is completed. [Dkt. No. 33.]

Discussion.^FN1

FN1. While this court could strike the motion as untimely and deny Defendants' request on that basis, it will address the merits so as to further confirm the finality of this issue and address the issue of sanctions against defense counsel.

In this joint discovery motion, the parties ask:

Defendants' Position: If Plaintiff's expert takes pictures or measurements of “fringe” or perimeter areas to submit to the court to support the contention that changes are necessary for Plaintiff to return to the property or that the property fails to meet applicable standards for disabled accessibility, Defendants want Plaintiff's expert to also include “appropriate” pictures or measurements of the primary pathways and public areas “so that the Court will receive complete and accurate information about whether changes are actually needed.” If this court grants Defendants' relief, Defendants will seek fees in another motion.

Plaintiff's Position: Defendants cannot dictate how Plaintiff's expert will conduct his inspection or present his findings. Rule 34 allows Plaintiff a right to conduct an expert inspection and “the defense does not have the right to dictate how plaintiff's expert conducts his inspection, where he takes measurements, or to determine or dictate what pictures plaintiff's expert takes (if any) or how he presents his findings.” Plaintiff also asks for sanctions against defense counsel.

*3 In support of their argument, Defendants argue that if Plaintiff's expert does not use the methodology supported by the defense, then “it could create the inaccurate impression in this matter of public record that changes are required, or should be ordered, for the property to meet applicable standards.” Jt. Mtn, p. 3. They say that Plaintiff's unreliable, irrelevant and inaccurate information will not help the district judge determine whether the property meets the applicable standards for disabled access.

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party[.]” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Discovery can be limited if the burden of it “outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(2)(iii).

Rule 34 governs site inspections. The purpose is:

to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 34(a)(2).

Plaintiff served a request for a site inspection to take place on June 25, 2014. Defendants agreed to the request, and on June 5, 2014 said that “[w]hile all discovery is stayed in this case ... Defendants are amenable to accommodating the inspection request and knew in filing the MPSJ that such a request might be made.” Ex Parte Mtn to Modify ENE and MSJ Deadlines, p. 2 [Dkt. No. 20]. On June 20, though, Defendants changed their mind, filed an 89–page “objection” to the site inspection (which the court struck from the docket), and unilaterally terminated Plaintiff's site inspection. They said they were amenable to allowing the site inspection but want the court to require Plaintiff's expert to use a specific methodology espoused by Defendants. Ex Parte Mtn to Further Modify ENE Order, p. 2 [Dkt. No. 26.] The court refused to impose the methodology and lifted the stay on discovery, so that there would be no question that the site inspection would be permitted.

Now, rather than address whether a site inspection should take place, Defendants use this discovery motion to attack the merits of Plaintiff's case. Such argument is irrelevant to whether Defendants—under the discovery rules—must allow Plaintiff to inspect the premises that he alleges do not physically comply with the ADA. Such an inspection satisfies the relevance requirement under Rule 26 as it relates to the claims and defenses in this suit. There is no apparent burden to Defendants to allow the inspection, which goes to the core issues at stake in the litigation, i.e., whether the premises are ADA compliant. And, Defendants never address why they cannot have their own expert do an inspection according to the protocol they espouse.

*4 Trying to impose a certain methodology on the inspection is not a legitimate basis to refuse to comply with an inspection demand or a court order that lifts discovery. In trying to dictate to Plaintiff how he should conduct his own site inspection, Defendants seek to circumvent the adversarial process and use Plaintiff as a vehicle to present their own arguments. If Plaintiff adopts Defendants' methodology for the site inspection, then it appears there will be no dispute to resolve. The request to order that the site inspection be done in a certain way essentially asks this court for an order that would preemptively determine there is no issue of fact, which is the question squarely before the district judge on summary judgment. In short, Defendants' request makes no sense.

For failure to show any legal authority or good cause to support circumvention of Rules 26 and 34 and the adversarial process, the court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff's expert to conduct a site inspection according to the methodology insisted upon by Defendants. The court ORDERS that Plaintiff's site inspection go forward no later than August 22, 2014, in which Plaintiff's expert shall use his own methodology to inspect the property and neither Defendants or Mr. Peters shall in any way impede the expert's inspection of the property.

Order to Show Cause.

A party can move for an order compelling a site inspection where “a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). If the court grants the motion, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require ... the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” The court will not impose the sanctions if “the opposing party's ... objection was substantially justified.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). Wilfulness is not a requirement for sanctions; however, a good faith discovery dispute may amount to “substantial justification.” Liew v. Breen, 640 F.2d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.1981).

At this time it appears to the court that Defendants—based on the advisement of their counsel, Mr. David W. Peters—obstructed discovery without any legitimate justification. The obstruction includes:

• Unilateral termination of the June 25, 2014 site inspection, for which Mr. Peters represented to the court that the Defendants expected and were amenable to. [Dkt. No. 20, p. 2.]

• Filing with the court an 89–page “objection” to the site inspection that Defendants agreed to, which violated the court's filing rules and showed no effort to first meet and confer with Plaintiff to resolve the dispute.

• Even though the court lifted the stay on discovery—thus clearly opening the door for a site inspection under Rule 34—Defendants continued to insist that Plaintiff's expert conduct such inspection according to Defendants' own methodology rather than the expert's own methodology.

*5 • Signing a stipulation with Plaintiff that appeared to resolve Defendants' complaint about the methodology to be used for the site inspection, then unilaterally terminating the July 16 site inspection that Defendants had agreed to schedule.

By obstructing discovery the defense has prevented Plaintiff from filing a substantive opposition to the summary judgment motion. This not only prejudices Plaintiff but also encumbers the court because (1) the district judge has had to continue the briefing and hearing on the summary judgment motion several times to accommodate the defense's conduct; (2) it has encumbered this court with numerous and repetitive filings that ask the court to address the same issue of the site inspection; and (3) carries no regard for deadlines the court imposes, evidenced by the filing of this discovery motion five days late.

The court is aware that Mr. Peters has engaged in almost identical conduct in other cases. See, e.g., Shaw v. Tujunga Restaurants, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176585 (C.D.Cal.2012) (imposing sanctions against Mr. Peters for $17,585.49 to compensate the plaintiff for the work to compel the site inspection, entirely due to the “machinations, misrepresentations, and general bad faith acts by defendant”); see also Hager v. Karr, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4068 (C.D.Cal.2006) (imposing $1100 in sanctions against Mr. Peters for discovery violations and warning him that further failure to comply will expose him to the risk of additional monetary and case dispositive sanctions).

Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS:

1. By August 13, 2014, Plaintiff's counsel shall file a declaration no longer than eight (8) pages setting forth the fees associated with the filing of this joint discovery motion, which shall include the attorney hours expended on the motion and all work to compel the site inspection, the hourly rate of the attorney(s) who worked on this issue, and a description of the attorney's experience.

2. Mr. Peters shall file by August 20, 2014 a responsive declaration no longer than eight (8) pages, setting forth what he believes to be substantial justification for opposing Plaintiff's site inspection demand.

3. Plaintiff may file by August 25, 2014 a reply no longer than four (4) pages to Mr. Peters' declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thursday 21 May 2015

Minority kids

Rankings & Advice News U.S. News Home

HEALTH

Facebook Twitter

Health Rankings & Advice

Home Hospitals Doctors Health Insurance Nursing Homes Diets Health & Wellness

Minority Kids Less Likely to Be Diagnosed, Treated for ADHD: Study

Finding points to possible disparities in care

HealthDayJune 24, 2013 | 9:00 a.m. EDT+ More

By Brenda Goodman

HealthDay Reporter MONDAY, June 24 (HealthDay News) -- Minority children are significantly less likely than their white peers to be diagnosed or treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), new research shows.

The study, which is published online June 24 and in the July print issue of the journal Pediatrics, followed more than 17,000 children across the nation from kindergarten to eighth grade. Researchers regularly asked parents if their children had been diagnosed with ADHD.

[Read: U.S. News Best Children's Hospitals]

Even after taking into account a host of factors that may influence behavior, attention and access to health care, researchers found that Hispanic and Asian children and those of other races were about half as likely to receive a diagnosis as whites. Blacks were about two-thirds less likely to be recognized as having problems with attention or hyperactivity as whites.

In addition, when minority children were diagnosed, they were less likely to receive medication than white kids with ADHD, the investigators found.

The study can't say, however, whether the differences mean that ADHD is being underdiagnosed in minorities or overdiagnosed in whites. Previous research has raised both possibilities.

A study published in the journal Clinical Psychology Review in 2009, for example, found that despite having more symptoms of distractibility and hyperactivity, black children were diagnosed with ADHD less often than whites.

[Read: Twitter Chat About Healthy Kids]

On the other hand, a study published in April 2012 in the Canadian Medical Association Journalfound that the youngest children in their school class were more likely to be diagnosed compared to the oldest children in those grades, suggesting that some doctors and teachers may mistake immaturity for ADHD, leading to overdiagnosis.

One expert suggested that socioeconomic and cultural differences may be at work.

Doctors still don't know if one or both problems may be driving the rates of lower diagnoses in minorities seen in the current study, said Dr. Tanya Froehlich, a pediatrician at Cincinnati Children's Hospital in Ohio.

"It does seem to be clear that there are some cultural differences at work, and also probably some differences in access to health care and access to health care information," said Froehlich, who was not involved in the research.

For example, the study noted that children without health insurance were less likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than children who had coverage. Kids from lower-income families were also less likely to be diagnosed.

[Read: Pharmacists' Top Recommended Pediatric Medicines]

Yet, children with older mothers, who tend to be more highly educated, and those with parents who spoke to doctors in English were more likely to be diagnosed with the condition. Both those factors are signs that access to health care and awareness of the problem may also be playing a role.

Several risk factors for ADHD occur more often in minority children than in whites. Those include a lower household income, less educated parents and low birth weight.

"What that suggests in our study is that there are children who are likely deserving of a diagnosis, but who aren't receiving a diagnosis, which raises the question of a lack of treatment," said study author Paul Morgan, director of the educational risk initiative at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pa.

The consequences of ADHD can be serious if the condition is left untreated.

"We know that people with ADHD have higher rates of failing a grade in school, lower academic achievement, lower achievement in their jobs, higher rates of incarceration, higher rates of substance abuse, more problems with relationships, and higher rates of depression and anxiety," Froehlich said. "It is extensive."

There's some evidence that treatment, either with behavioral therapies or medication, can improve the outlook for affected children.

"Definitely, we want all kids to be treated and to have the best chance possible for success in life," Froehlich said. "So if people truly have ADHD and they're not identified, that's going to hold them back."

12 >

TAGS: insurance parenting race therapy

+ More

You Might Also Like

Find the Best Diet for You

7 Surprising Things That Age You

Top Recommended Health Products

U.S. News Twitter Chat: Living With Asthma

By Angela Haupt | May 20, 2015

When Vegetarians Go Paleo

By Anna Medaris Miller | May 20, 2015

No Dental Insurance? Don’t Wait for Something to Go Wrong

By Elizabeth Renter | May 20, 2015

COPD, Asthma and the Environment

By Lisa Esposito | May 20, 2015

Never Again: Time to Bring Wellness Strategies to Cancer Survivors

By Daniel Neides, M.D. | May 20, 2015

World IBD Day: How One Teen Found 'Light at the End of the Tunnel'

By Sneha Dave | May 19, 2015

Washington, D.C. Ranks the Fittest City in America

By Anna Medaris Miller | May 19, 2015

4 Options for Patients Afraid of Needles

By Samantha Costa | May 19, 2015

Drug Assistance Programs: All They’re Cracked Up to Be?

By Lacie Glover | May 19, 2015

Coping With Cancer in the Workplace

By Anna Medaris Miller | May 18, 2015

Unexpected Lessons From the Ebola Outbreak

By Elaine Cox, M.D. | May 18, 2015

How to Exercise When You’re Diagnosed With Type 2 Diabetes

By Lisa Esposito | May 15, 2015

The Weird Way to Make Your Supermarket Trip Healthier

By K. Aleisha Fetters | May 15, 2015

Nonstatin Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs Show Promise

By Michael O. Schroeder | May 14, 2015

Surviving a Loved One’s Suicide

By Kirstin Fawcett | May 14, 2015

Put Your Best Voice Forward

By Michael Benninger, M.D. | May 14, 2015

Easy Ways to Protect Your Aging Brain

By Samantha Costa | May 13, 2015

Last Place and Proud: I Finished a Race Last

By Anna Medaris Miller | May 13, 2015

Healthy Aging: Preserving Your Bones and Joints

By Lisa Esposito | May 13, 2015

Teens With Type 1 Diabetes: How to Cope and When to Seek Help

By Elizabeth Renter | May 13, 2015

See More

10 Tips for a Healthier Barbecue

Don't throw your health goals out the window at the first sight of cheeseburgers, potato salad and pie.

Dietitians Dish on Their Favorite Apps

Some like SworkitPro; others recommend Charity Miles.

Do We Look as Old as We Feel? Aging Perceptions of Gen X Adults

Small steps can help take years off your appearance – or add years to your life.

Dietary Fats for the Fatuous

Beliefs about saturated fats' nutritional value are only the latest reflection of misrepresented research.

The Promise of Telemedicine

Consumers have no patience for inefficiency in other businesses. Why not health care?

See more Eat + Run posts »

Connect with U.S. News Health

SLIDESHOW

Easy Ways to Protect Your Aging Brain

SLIDESHOW

11 Ways to Cope With Back Pain

SLIDESHOW

Easy Ways to Get 10,000 Steps Per Day

Previous Next

News

News Home Opinion National Issues Cartoons Photos Videos Special Reports The Report

Rankings & Consumer Advice

Education

Colleges Graduate Schools High Schools Online Programs Community Colleges Global Universities Arab Universities

Health

Hospitals Doctor Finder Diets Nursing Homes Health Products Health Insurance Medicare

Money

Jobs Financial Advisors ETFs Mutual Funds Retirement

Travel

Vacations Cruises Hotels Hotel Rewards Airline Rewards

Cars

New Cars Used Cars

Law

Law Firms

About U.S. News Contact Us Site Map Press Room Advertising Info Store

Connect with us: Facebook Twitter Google+

Copyright 2015 © U.S. News & World Report LP.
Terms and Conditions / Privacy Policy.

Posted via Blogaway