[blindlaw] nfb v. target

Tim Shaw timandvickie at hotmail.com
Sun Mar 15 01:43:33 UTC 2009 

yes, they could go an pass a limit that is way to low like they have in Texas for medical malpractice in Texas. They have set such a hard maximum for such medical cases in Texas that it is had to find a lawyer here anymore that will do malpractice cases anymore because the amount received wont even cover the legal fees

 
> From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:14:14 -0700
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> 
> part of the issue here is that damages awarded to punish businesses for this 
> type of inappropriate behavior. it is used as a deterrent to insure that 
> businesses are made to follow the laws and take civil rights issues 
> seriously. It is the same principle that courts use for assessing fines for 
> drunk driving and other offenses. In order to bring about change you need to 
> affect an individual or a business in a way that is effective and awarding 
> damages is one of the best ways possible. It has become a sound principal of 
> law and has been upheld in many court tests both in civil and criminal 
> cases.
> Chuck Krugman, M.S.W., Paralegal
> 1237 P Street
> Fresno ca 93721
> 559-266-9237
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve P. Deeley" <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> 
> 
> >I want someone to show me how this results in damages of this magnitude.
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" <roddj12 at hotmail.com>
> > To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >
> >
> >> Steve:
> >>
> >> If you are not an attorney or a law student, we may be arguing and
> >> understanding different concepts here. "Damage" is a legal concept, and 
> >> if
> >> not used in that sense can certainly lead to ridiculous understanding. A
> >> damage award allows a plaintiff to be compensated for the harm caused by 
> >> the
> >> defendant. Damages take various forms: physical harm, emotional harm, 
> >> loss
> >> wages, etc. Here as Scott said, the legislature has decided to make such
> >> civil rights violations compensable as damages. It is a legal recognition
> >> that a harm was caused, and it was caused to the plaintiff. The harm here
> >> was violations of federal and State civil rights.
> >> I hope that helps.
> >>
> >> Rod Alcidonis
> >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009.
> >> Roger Williams University School of Law
> >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003
> >> Bristol, RI 02809
> >> Cell: 718-704-4651
> >> Home: 401-824-8685
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "Steve P. Deeley" <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
> >> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:20 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >>
> >>
> >>> Well, sign me up. There are dozens of Web sites a year that I can't
> >>> access. This is just ridiculous. This is, exactly, what raises the cost
> >>> of doing business for companies. I'm not condoning Target's continuing
> >>> unwillingness to deal with their inaccessible
> >>> web site, however, there is no way that an individual is damaged to the
> >>> tune of $4,000.00.
> >>> Steve
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >>> From: "Mehgan Sidhu" <ms at browngold.com>
> >>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:02 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Steve,
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition to the ADA claim, the lawsuit was brought under 
> >>>> California's
> >>>> Unruh Act and Disabled Person's Act, both of which provide for minimum
> >>>> statutory damages ($4,000 and $1,000 per violation, respectively). 
> >>>> Under
> >>>> the agreement, members of the California class who are legally blind, 
> >>>> had
> >>>> attempted to use Target.com between February 7, 2003 and December 9,
> >>>> 2008, and experienced significant barriers were eligible for damages of
> >>>> up to $3,500 per violation for a maximum of 2 violations.
> >>>>
> >>>> A copy of the settlement is available at the following site:
> >>>> http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com/final_settlement.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Mehgan Sidhu
> >>>> Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
> >>>> 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
> >>>> Baltimore, Maryland 21202
> >>>> 410-962-1030 x1324
> >>>> 410-385-0869 (fax)
> >>>> ms at browngold.com
> >>>> www.browngold.com
> >>>>
> >>>> Confidentiality Notice
> >>>>
> >>>> This e-mail may contain confidential information that may also be 
> >>>> legally
> >>>> privileged and that is intended only for the use of the addressee(s)
> >>>> named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized
> >>>> agent of the recipient, please be advised that any dissemination or
> >>>> copying of this e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance on the
> >>>> information contained herein, is strictly prohibited. If you have
> >>>> received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by use of 
> >>>> the
> >>>> reply button, and then delete the e-mail from your system. Thank you!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
> >>>> On
> >>>> Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley
> >>>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:31 PM
> >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >>>>
> >>>> This is ridiculous! How were these people damaged?
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >>>> From: "Mehgan Sidhu" <ms at browngold.com>
> >>>> To: <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:20 PM
> >>>> Subject: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> To answer the recent questions posted about the Target case, the final
> >>>>> settlement hearing took place on March 9th. I understand from our
> >>>>> counsel
> >>>>> in California, Larry Paradis of DRA and Josh Konecky, that there were 
> >>>>> no
> >>>>> objectors and the Judge was pleased with the resolution of the case. 
> >>>>> The
> >>>>> settlement is not fully "final" until the time for any appeals has 
> >>>>> run -
> >>>>> which is about 30 days. Given there were no objectors, it is highly
> >>>>> unlikely that any appeals will be filed. The judge has not yet made a
> >>>>> ruling on attorneys fees, but that will not hold up enforcement of the
> >>>>> settlement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As for disbursements, assuming there are no appeals, the claims
> >>>>> administer
> >>>>> has 45 days from the final approval date to disburse funds to 
> >>>>> claimants.
> >>>>> I do not know the final tally of approved claimants, though I think
> >>>>> there
> >>>>> were several hundred. I will pass that information along when I have
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We will now be working on enforcing the settlement commitments that
> >>>>> Target
> >>>>> made with respect to the accessibility of the website.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mehgan Sidhu
> >>>>> Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
> >>>>> 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
> >>>>> Baltimore, Maryland 21202
> >>>>> 410-962-1030 x1324
> >>>>> 410-385-0869 (fax)
> >>>>> ms at browngold.com<mailto:ms at browngold.com>
> >>>>> www.browngold.com<http://www.browngold.com/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Confidentiality Notice
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This e-mail may contain confidential information that may also be
> >>>>> legally
> >>>>> privileged and that is intended only for the use of the addressee(s)
> >>>>> named
> >>>>> above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent 
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> the recipient, please be advised that any dissemination or copying of
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance on the information 
> >>>>> contained
> >>>>> herein, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> >>>>> error, please notify me immediately by use of the reply button, and 
> >>>>> then
> >>>>> delete the e-mail from your system. Thank you!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> blindlaw mailing list
> >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>>> blindlaw:
> >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release Date:
> >>>> 03/13/09
> >>>> 05:59:00
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> blindlaw mailing list
> >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>> blindlaw:
> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ms%40browngold.com
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> blindlaw mailing list
> >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>> blindlaw:
> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release Date: 
> >>> 03/13/09
> >>> 05:59:00
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> blindlaw mailing list
> >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> blindlaw:
> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> blindlaw mailing list
> >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> >> blindlaw:
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release Date: 03/13/09 
> > 05:59:00
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > blindlaw mailing list
> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> > blindlaw:
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009

More information about the BlindLaw mailing list