Ice rink future in doubt: Redwood City’s Nazareth Ice Oasis sued over ADA issues

If the attorney does NOT want the rink to close nor does he want an elevator installed, just what does he want? If he's only requesting that his "client" had dinner brought down to her from an employee upstairs, why would he file a lawsuit? Makes you wonder, huh?

I agree 100% with MRmommy. If the intent of Marva Samuel and her money grubbing attorneys was NOT to have the rink close, than perhaps, they could have worked with the owner to address the issues instead of filing a lawsuit. Even IF the employee made a mistake and said the wrong things, can we not use this as a place of learning? Let's address the concerns and find a solution that doesn't cause the rink to close down. I hope you sleep well at night Marva. I am sorry you are disabled, but you have now successfully put a small family business out of business and you will soon see hundreds of children and adults without yet another recreational facility and a slew of people without jobs. Was it worth it to you and your attorneys? Funny that you went to see your grandchildren skate, and guess what, you won't have another opportunity to do that unless you travel all the way to San Francisco or San Jose. Does it feel good to you? How would you feel if your grandchildren were banned from skating rinks because of what their grandmother does when she goes to watch them? Well now, wouldn't that be an extreme response? Yes, same extreme response as suing a skating rink and having it shut down. Thanks a million. The bay area produces amazing skaters - Rudy Galindo, Kristi Yamaguchi, Brian Boitano and now Alyssa Lui. Well, we won't be seeing that anymore if our kids don't have a place to skate. Thanks again Marva and your money grubbing attorneys. As I said above, I hope you all sleep well at night!

Rein and Clefton only files ADA lawsuits. Their own website says so. So I'm very skeptical that Ms Samuels is not looking for a large payout. And apparently, it is more important to Ms Samuels, who was only "using a walker at the time" that the rink's second-floor grill accommodate her than it is to have a place for her granddaughter to skate. And I'm sorry that it "forc[ed] family members to retrieve a meal for her" because I would have happily retrieved a meal FOR ANYONE (including my own grandmother) who needed assistance, and I would not consider it an imposition much less "forced."

Ms Samuels could win the battle but lose the war here: if she is successful in driving the rink out of business, how will her granddaughter and all other skaters feel about that? Because she couldn't have a sandwich?

Don't say I'm unsympathetic to those with walkers or wheelchairs because I am not and you don't know who in my family uses one. But there are a thousand other options to accommodate Ms Samuels instead of driving the rink out of business.

I skated as a child at Belmont Iceland in the 1970s and early 1980s. Sad to see that a hedge fund merely bought the site, and keeps it roped in chains. As a society, we should considering weighing activities for youth at a local/societal level against the needs of one/a few people who can be reasonably accommodated. This can be accomplished without lawyers.

“This is only the third lawsuit in 20 years [my client] brought as a civil person and it was a real problem because she couldn’t have a meal with her family and watch her grandchildren skate under the circumstances. She’s not one of these serial filers you read about sometimes.”

Most citizen never file a civil lawsuit in their lifetime. It is (1) very expensive, and (2) emotionally very exhausing. So that is 2 instances more "litigation happy" than an averae person if you ask me.

If Oasis shuts down because of this, I hope his client will be happy and sleep well every night that she destroyed the joy of thousands of youths and adults in the community, incuding her grandchildren, from skating there. I hope she can explain why the upstairs diner is closed now, and their ice rink may become closed because she complained.

Closing because of ONE person? That should not be. It is not as if there are other ice rinks close by. Traffic is horrible and having to go to San Jose or San Fransico is not a viable option for most who live on the Peninsula. Shame on her and attorneys. All about you. Selfish.

My son skated here years ago, and I am familiar with the layout. There is no excuse for not making the upstairs accessible to people with walkers, wheelchairs, and health issues with climbing stairs. (It would also be more convenient for families with strollers.) It is the most comfortable place to watch the skaters, and I understand her desire to watch with other family members. It's not a new law. They should do the right and legal thing.

the Ada does not permit in a ward beyond attorney fees. Californium a permanent award beyond attorney fees but that is within the state itself. nobody regulates or verifies that a place of business is accessible. Which means it is a responsibility of the disabled community to do so so you may find more one person or more than one person in fact is more willing to speak up and file a lawsuit to have a place become accessible. That doesn't mean the person is lawsuit happy it just means they're willing to take that risk and receive the type of attention it's happening here. As opposed to the disable community just marking a business is being inaccessible and no longer going there which is what generally happens to enlarge extent. so the number of lawsuits this particular person has filed I would think would be irrelevant what's relevant is the fact that we have a segment of society as a matter of fact 25% of society being disabled within the United States that is not able to access this business by definition of the Ada and for disability now the percentage is likely lower based upon individual disabilities excetera but the point is were eliminating quarter to effective society depending upon the state. the other thing is ask yourself if you would have the same feelings if this was any other protected class? If this is a person denied entry because of race gender sexual orientation gender identification etc would you be so abrupt and that this is the wrong way to go? Remember the only way to resolve accessibility is by filing a lawsuit otherwise you're trying to have a conversation with a business and the majority of the time that business does not listen, as was the case when the person tried to resolve it when they were there.

This rink is indeed an oasis for thousands of local residents to engage in all kinds of ice skating exercise & fun. While I agree that steps could be taken to make it more ADA compliant, that does not seem to be the intent of this litigant as the suit is compelling instant and expensive change. If the intent was to make changes, there are other ways of making that happen other than a lawsuit which will effectively shut down the rink as the owner will probably simply sell the property rather than add an elevator when other expensive renovations are pressing. My partner and I are here at least twice a week and are so disappointed in the greedy law firm and their greedy client, Marva Samuels, who care more about some perceived payout than the well-being of thousands of families (and her own granddaughter) who utilize this rink and who will have one less place to exercise because of their avarice & litigiousness.
Also, I know everyone who works there and I can't imagine anyone saying something so rude. As far as watching her granddaughter, that would be easy as you can sit on the ground floor and watch, which is what I always do. So yeah, thanks Marva Samuels and your greedy lawyers for bringing your lawsuit so you can shut down a great place to skate for thousands of Peninsula residents. You are emblematic of what is wrong in this overly litigious country.

This is so ridiculous to close an ice rink over one person's lawsuit, the ice rink in Redwood City has been serving tons of people who have been ice skating. this ADA lawsuit is over a restaurant in the same building of the ice rink, not the ice rink itself. Which makes this lawsuit just misleading, I'm for adding an elevator or lift for certain people, but don't force a rink to close over this. This is so selfish, and rather have the rink operating and serving our community than this nonsense lawsuit.

Awful. Why couldn’t this lady watch from the viewing room below?? What a lame excuse to close a rink that’s loved by so many and such a big part of the community and close down a small family business.