[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Nucky

I believe that Mr. villagetinker put the idea of a lawsuit in the form of a question to see if it had any merit.

That wasn't the only post suggesting the idea.

Re: Post #253

I get why people are upset, because I'm one of them, but the vision of pitchforks and burning torches...is not a very flattering picture of our community.

[onslowe]

Hi VT, I don't think that dissolution of the LLC ends the suit because the LLC is/was an assumed business name of the Charter School Inc. The latter entity is a continuing party defendant, because the court granted partial summary judgement to it, and not complete summary judgment. I think I recall that the issue of 'undue financial hardship' upon it still remains triable against the Charter School, doing business as LifeLearning College. So, whatever LLC did that is found to be contrary to the RA or such will be ultimately ascribed legally to the Charter School. That includes any purported misdoing in the past, and more importantly, the (theoretical) cost of 'corrective measures' for the LLC if going forward.

I may be inaccurate having read this decision once only.

[Sandy222]

My heart just aches for all the people that will no longer experience Caron and Jacks yoga classes. I have been taking their classes for over 10 years and can not possible explain the life changing lessons learned in that class. The absence of this class in my life is a major loss. The closing of the LLLC is such a shame. Words can not express the hurt.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by goodtimesintv

EXCELLENT post!

I think we all know what kind of outfit would take a case like this (on contingency?) to get it shut down while claiming to want benefit from its instruction!

Maybe they will champion Carlos Danger Weiner next. Seems like a perfect marriage of ethics and decency.

Actually this looks like a worthwhile law firm fighting for the rights of the hearing impaired.

Thanks to onslowe for posting with his legal expertise. Miss seeing you in person and hope things are going well? Send me a Private Message if you want to chat.

I doubt if many of the lawyers on the plaintiffs' side are happy with the closing of the Lifelong Learning College either because of their contingency fees but also it hurts their clients who live here in the Villages.

I do hope that we can somehow get some new kind of entity that meets the needs of Villagers to education and also that reasonably accommodates those with some kind of hearing disability.

[pbkmaine]

It seems to me that the plaintiffs differ from everyone else about what the word "reasonable" means.

[gslupski]

"Louis Schwarz, et al., Appellants v. The Villages Charter School, Inc., et al." is on the docket of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Atlanta, GA) for 12/16/16. Don't know if it will stay on the docket since the LLC is disbanding, but it's here for your review.

[Buckeye Bob]

Originally Posted by dbussone

Anyone can sue anyone else at any time for anything - whether there is reasonable cause or not. (I learned that a long time ago without going to law school. Over a 40 year career in healthcare I've just about seen all of it.)

All that is necessary is to find an attorney willing to take up your cause. I bet a class action group of 100,000 or more, at least initially supported by a healthy gofundme account, would have no difficulty finding excellent representation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"Elizabeth Holst, who is a Plaintiff in this case with Louis Schwarz, took Schwarz to Small Claims Court in October, 2015.

"Plaintiff asserted Defendant negligently grabbed her and took her phone away from her. Plaintiff claims damages in the amount of $4,422 for being banned from attending Deaf and Social Services, missing water volleyball games, distress, court costs and sheriff fees, and missing bowl leagues. Plaintiff calculated her damage based upon what she thought is fair."

Using this method to determine fairness, I can only imagine what kind of payday the 32 of them were looking for.

[villagetinker]

Originally Posted by onslowe

Hi VT, I don't think that dissolution of the LLC ends the suit because the LLC is/was an assumed business name of the Charter School Inc. The latter entity is a continuing party defendant, because the court granted partial summary judgement to it, and not complete summary judgment. I think I recall that the issue of 'undue financial hardship' upon it still remains triable against the Charter School, doing business as LifeLearning College. So, whatever LLC did that is found to be contrary to the RA or such will be ultimately ascribed legally to the Charter School. That includes any purported misdoing in the past, and more importantly, the (theoretical) cost of 'corrective measures' for the LLC if going forward.

I may be inaccurate having read this decision once only.

Yeah, that is what I was afraid of........this is just one big ugly mess.

[BarryRX]

Originally Posted by outahere

They may move, but the damage to the rest of us is already done. I sure hope the attorneys who represented them send them a LARGE bill for their services.

Probably the lawyers took the case on a contingency basis and the plaintiffs wont have to pay anything.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by BarryRX

Probably the lawyers took the case on a contingency basis and the plaintiffs wont have to pay anything.

They did! They won't. And I believe the attorneys are suing LLC/Charter School for fees associated with this case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MMMark]

Originally Posted by onslowe

I read the Court's decision regarding the summary judgment motion to seek an end to that case. Seven years! That's a lot of time for lots of billable hours, especially when the plaintiff's lead firm has no office below the Mason-Dixon line. Travel hours..a great time tested extra hours assurance, especially from NYC to Florida.

Now, and this is one of the reasons I post. That law firm, now known as Eisenberg and Blum, says that they work on contingency fee bases only. So, theoretically these thirty two persons would not have to pay their attorneys as time went along, and they would, like accident lawyers, take a percentage (30-40 %) of awarded monetary damages. But, to the point - the lawyers made sure they had a claim for attorneys fees in their relief clause, along with all the other plaintiff's claims.

If the plaintiffs win their suit - and it's not necessarily over since we're talking years of purported violations of Federal laws and non-legislated agency regulations - if the plaintiffs win even a part, and the legal fees are awarded, then there will be a wonderful opportunity for them to submit masterpieces of creative writing in the form of 'billable hours for services rendered.' I don't know if the ADA or the RA contain mandated awards of fees to lawyers, but if they're like the various Civil Rights acts and lawsuits, they will give a very healthy nest egg to the lawyers.

That is why these aggressive legal knights take on 'cases in the public interest' and act like they're 'peoples' law firms.' They are guaranteed big money at the end of the case.

This boutique law firm practices labor, sexual, and disability law as its expertise. Google them if you wish, and see for yourself.

Be very careful with some of the facile, very partial and incomplete posts above that argue that all people are all entitled to the same things. It's not true, historically or legally. It's what our embarassing college 'snowflakes' are led to believe these days about life. You will see comments saying 'the Learning College' pay the cost to make things satisfactory' to these 32 people. Pass along the cost to us. We have nothing to say about it. Why? Because it's Federal law.

I agree with the idea of shutting down the school in light of a possible jury trial. Do you remember the MacDonald's coffee case? Juries on civil cases can be positively wild - get back at the big boys. Ask any defense lawyer in the accident cases. And who ultimately pays 'purported damages' and lawyers' fees? You and I.

I would hope another form of the Lifelong Learning College can be returned to the people of the Villages somehow free from any and all Federal 'grants' etc and as an idependent entity.

Please also don't mistakenly think the defendants 'were winning.' Some parts, and big ones to be sure, were decided against these 32 people. But, enough remained to go to trial to warrant prudent litigation decisions by the defendants.

What a wonderful jewel these thirty two selfish and entitled people and their ilk took away from the Villages, and most importantly, for those 18000 people who loved the LLC. It's sad when people are angry about their condition or lot in life, but it's reprehensible to selfishly demand that society bend over backwards for them (even if it is the 'almighty Federal law.)

I am a very disgusted retired lawyer. I am a Villager, and I don't like what is happening to this place.

Best. Post. Yet. So glad I pushed through the prior 20+ pages to get it. I could not agree more. We badly need a change of direction in this nation, and soon.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

from my reading of the legal document. they initially went after the Resident Lifestyle Groups....but it appears the case was not as strong, so then they went after the LLC because although the filing states many of the plaintiffs have never enrolled the case would be more easily made.

I've read the conjectures regarding this case, and I want to offer one of my own.

1. Since we now know that the Plaintiffs are appealing the case to the 11th District Court of Appeals, it is obvious that they are appealing something that they lost. I believe someone who read the original case closely stated that they lost in their hope to include the Resident Lifestyle Groups (RLG) in the suit. I think there was also a statement that this was not a true ADA case, but involved some other accommodation law. This is not just an appeal against the Lifelong Learning Center closing.

2. The appeal is lodged against the Sumter CDD and the Villages Community Development District (VCDD.) Why would that be? Are they appealing the decision of the lower court that the RLGs could not be included in the suit? They've closed the Learning Center. Are RLGs their next target? I could not find any court documents that contained the actual facts of the appeal. I did note that in the appeals documents it was still styled as an ADA case.

3. Like others, I hope that some future method may be worked out that permits adult education to continue in The Villages. I have some ideas, but let's see what comes of the appeal this month.

During my last assignment at the Sheriff's Office in Tampa I was the ADA Compliance officer. I was able to work out several reasonable accommodations. Only once was I not successful. We were taken to court where I testified and won. The judge agreed that for that particular case there was no conceivable reasonable accommodation.

Awaiting developments in the appeal.

[villagetinker]

All,

As promised, here is the letter I sent to the CDD (we live in) and Jane Tutt, and her reply. Janet, thank for allowing this to be shared.

[Janet Tutt and CDD supervisors]
My wife and I are extremely disappointed in learning of the sudden closing of this facility. My wife is one of the 18,000 that had signed up for courses this spring. She had invested in supplies in anticipation of these classes.

As home owners and permanent residents of The Villages, we expect, no we demand, that efforts be made immediately to bring back the LLLC facility. There must be some intermediate stand between the parties involved to allow this to reopen. As I understand the situation, the LLLC would need to provide some reasonable effort to accommodate the hearing disabled population.

So, how can this be such a big deal, 30 people, maximum number of classes involved at any time, 30 classes, maximum amount of additional ASL interpreters 30. My suggestion, add language to all classes that there may be an additional charge for the ASL person, you would need to determine a suitable way of determining the additional charge, but I am guessing an additional $1 or $2 charge per person per class set aside, would cover the potential cost of the ASL person.

Let’s get together and fix this.

Reply from Janet Tutt:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for contacting the Supervisors for your District.
As you are probably aware, none of the Districts are involved in the Life Long Learning College or The Villages Charter School so I cannot address some of your questions.
However, I can tell you I have been contacted by the President of the VHA who has expressed the willingness to provide help in any way if there is an opportunity for the VCCDD or SLCDD to provide some option to continue this great program.
It is clear from the newspaper article that The Villages Charter School was more than willing and financially capable of meeting the specific needs requested by the plaintiffs which included interpreters and assisted listening devices. However, I do understand The Villages Charter School is not in a position to monetarily meet the plaintiffs’ additional fiscal demands. As stated in the article, any additional fiscal demands could not come from The Charter School budget without impacting the core purpose of the school.
The VHA has been instrumental in the past in helping to bring about positive and resident beneficial actions by the boards (one example is the successful Project Wide Advisory Committee) and based on their offer and resident input, I understand based on my conversation that the VHA will be asking VCCDD and SLCDD to explore the possibility of providing this type of program. I will be reaching out to Dr. McDaniel the first of the week to secure budgets/financial information regarding the Lifelong Learning College so we will be able to respond to the VHA’s anticipated request and offer to help.
Please let me know if you need anything further.
Janet

My follow-up comment:
It looks like the VHA might be our best agent to restore the LLLC in some form. Let's see what happens in the mid December hearing.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

All,

As promised, here is the letter I sent to the CDD (we live in) and Jane Tutt, and her reply. Janet, thank for allowing this to be shared.

[Janet Tutt and CDD supervisors]
My wife and I are extremely disappointed in learning of the sudden closing of this facility. My wife is one of the 18,000 that had signed up for courses this spring. She had invested in supplies in anticipation of these classes.

As home owners and permanent residents of The Villages, we expect, no we demand, that efforts be made immediately to bring back the LLLC facility. There must be some intermediate stand between the parties involved to allow this to reopen. As I understand the situation, the LLLC would need to provide some reasonable effort to accommodate the hearing disabled population.

So, how can this be such a big deal, 30 people, maximum number of classes involved at any time, 30 classes, maximum amount of additional ASL interpreters 30. My suggestion, add language to all classes that there may be an additional charge for the ASL person, you would need to determine a suitable way of determining the additional charge, but I am guessing an additional $1 or $2 charge per person per class set aside, would cover the potential cost of the ASL person.

Let’s get together and fix this.

Reply from Janet Tutt:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for contacting the Supervisors for your District.
As you are probably aware, none of the Districts are involved in the Life Long Learning College or The Villages Charter School so I cannot address some of your questions.
However, I can tell you I have been contacted by the President of the VHA who has expressed the willingness to provide help in any way if there is an opportunity for the VCCDD or SLCDD to provide some option to continue this great program.
It is clear from the newspaper article that The Villages Charter School was more than willing and financially capable of meeting the specific needs requested by the plaintiffs which included interpreters and assisted listening devices. However, I do understand The Villages Charter School is not in a position to monetarily meet the plaintiffs’ additional fiscal demands. As stated in the article, any additional fiscal demands could not come from The Charter School budget without impacting the core purpose of the school.
The VHA has been instrumental in the past in helping to bring about positive and resident beneficial actions by the boards (one example is the successful Project Wide Advisory Committee) and based on their offer and resident input, I understand based on my conversation that the VHA will be asking VCCDD and SLCDD to explore the possibility of providing this type of program. I will be reaching out to Dr. McDaniel the first of the week to secure budgets/financial information regarding the Lifelong Learning College so we will be able to respond to the VHA’s anticipated request and offer to help.
Please let me know if you need anything further.
Janet

My follow-up comment:
It looks like the VHA might be our best agent to restore the LLLC in some form. Let's see what happens in the mid December hearing.

Well done VT. Perhaps there is a path out of this mess. I will do my part.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[golfing eagles]

Thanks, VT. But I'm a little confused by Ms. Tutt's response. It reads as though she was unaware of this 8 year long issue until she saw the same barebones DS article the rest of us did on Friday. I find that hard to believe since apparently the RLG's were sued at first. She then cites the article, and states that the LLLC offered ASL interpreters for any applicable class, which suggests the plaintiffs were more interested in "damages" ($$$$) than in participation. Finally, she seems to suggest that financial responsibility in any plan of correction might fall to the VHA, since they "volunteered" to help, no mention of TVLSI funds. What is your take on that response????