[QUOTE=billethkid;1329425]IMHO this played out exactly as expected. The plaintiffs felt that they were wronged. They brought suit against TV (seven? years ago). TV defends itself like they do in every legal action. TV never discusses it's business publicly which is prudent business practice. Plaintiffs were probably advised against going public since they know that public sentiment would not be on their side and seven years of overwhelming public outcry would significantly hinder the suit and its ability to win and probably lead to a decision by the legal counsel to drop the suit. Now, TV made a decision to close the LLC and it now becomes a public issue. The clock starts ticking now.

I wonder what the odds makers are getting on which thread receives the most posts, LLC or the who cut the trees down saga? And the side bet is how many additional threads will be submitted within the next year? Hmmmmmmmmm :D

We should march en masse to The Daily Sun and insist that, in the future, they must print ACTUAL NEWS.

Because it is not necessary to deprive 18,000+ Villagers an amenity that you and 32 others cannot enjoy----but you certainly could have if you had reached a compromise with the LLLC instead of running to your big city lawyers like a whiny little 3 year old brat. That's WHY

:1rotfl:

A little levity is always a good thing...with a subject as depressing as this one. :thumbup:

This is akin to two neighbors with identical houses and properties. Neighbor A finds out neighbor B's tax assessment is 300K, while his is 450K. He finds this unfair, but instead of going to the assessor to argue that his property is overvalued, he tells him that his neighbor is only assessed at 300K. So the assessor increases his neighbor to 450K. So did he "win"? Was it "fair". Or was he the same whiny 3 year old brat, extending his misfortune to others?

Looks like the lawyers in the case do work for the hearing impaired and the plaintiff listed first is a big advocate for the rights of the deaf. Look at his credentials on his Facebook page. They had probably worked together in the past. I do not believe a compromise would have been reached between these two -- the first plaintiff and the Villages' corporation. Both would have stood their ground at whatever the cost to the community at large.

Louis Schwarz --

Lack of perfection in the real world, or absence of instant solutions to problems, does not equate to a case of evil intent. The reality is most people don't see in the manner described in the above post.

So, in other words, it is no longer a question of WHAT he is, just HOW BIG of one.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Right. I just hope that he can come to his senses about how the Villages might be able to accommodate deaf people in the future without suing anyone he sees as being a little unreasonable.

There are a lot of deaf people in this world that do just fine without having to raise their issue at every drop of the hat.

They learn how to navigate and get along. The also know the world is not based on their inability nor any others.....that is just the way it is.

Well now he and the others coerced into joining him can feel good about disrutpting the lives of thousands because of less than 50.......welcome to the 21st century legal system where the majority loses another one!!

The original complaint had 35 plaintiffs. one passed away and 2 asked to be removed, leaving the current 32 plaintiffs. So, we have that going for us.

For fun, let's see what the plaintiffs attorneys might have invested so far. Note: this is pure speculation on my part.

There are 6 plaintiff attorneys listed in the suit. Let's say they each charge $1000/hour. Let's also assume that that includes all of their paralegal work and all of their travel, hotels, phone calls memos, and all other expenses. So, all in, $1000/hour per attorney.

Let's assume each attorney spends 100 hours per year on this case.

Let's assume that each attorney only worked a net 5 years out of the 8 total years on this case.

What does that add up to?
$6000 per hour for all the attorneys combined
$600,000 per year in billable fees for the firm
$3,000,000+ in total billable fees for the case in total - and counting.

Given the purported resume of the lead plaintiff, I wonder if he is receiving a finders fee for this case?

My husband and I haven't moved to TV yet - 6 more yrs. ADA rules apply to all retirement communities so I suddenly haven't changed my mind about TV due to the closing of the LL college. However, do you think soon-to-be retirees will rethink their plans based on amenities that might not be available once they move? ie. why would I move to TV and pay a monthly fee if the rec centers could potentially close? Why not buy in a community that currently doesn't offer anything and not pay a fee? OK, that's an extreme view but for those of us looking forward to retirement and all the things we'll be doing in the community we buy into, can we still be happy thinking about a future in TV? yes, I'm asking you all to look into the crystal ball and come up with an answer. : )

I doubt it. That doesn't fit his "activist" profile. The lead plaintiff is most likely to continue doing whatever he can until he can finally reach in the deep pocket he so dearly covets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, consider that houses in TV are generally more expensive than for similar houses in other nearby retirement communities. The reason promoted is that "you are not buying a house, you are buying the lifestyle." If the lifestyle significantly deteriorates, the reason for paying more in TV goes away.