`
`CHESA BOUDIN (SBN 284577)
`District Attorney of San Francisco
`EVAN ACKIRON (SBN 164628)
`Assistant Chief District Attorney
`GABRIEL MARKOFF (SBN 291656)
`NIDA VIDUTIS (SBN 306711)
`Assistant District Attorneys
`White Collar Crime Division
`350 Rhode Island Street, Suite 400N
`San Francisco, California 94103
`Telephone: (628) 652-4240
`Email: gabriel.markoff@sfgov.org
`
`GEORGE GASCÓN (SBN 182345)
`Los Angeles County District Attorney
`HOON CHUN (SBN 132516)
`Head Deputy District Attorney
`LESLEY KLEIN (SBN 175524)
`Assistant Head Deputy District Attorney
`CHELSEA BLATT (SBN 265752)
`Deputy District Attorney
`Consumer Protection Division
`211 West Temple Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90012
`Telephone: (213) 257-2458
`Email: lyklein@da.lacounty.gov
`
`Attorneys for the People
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`04/11/2022
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: JACKIE LAPREVOTTE
`Deputy Clerk
`
`CGC-22-599079
`
`Filing Fees Exempt (Gov. Code § 6103)
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`POTTER HANDY LLP, MARK POTTER,
`RUSSELL HANDY, DENNIS PRICE,
`AMANDA LOCKHART SEABOCK,
`CHRISTOPHER SEABOCK, PRATHIMA
`PRICE, RAYMOND BALLISTER JR., PHYL
`GRACE, CHRISTINA CARSON, ELLIOTT
`MONTGOMERY, FAYTHE GUTIERREZ,
`ISABEL ROSE MASANQUE, BRADLEY
`SMITH, TEHNIAT ZAMAN, JOSIE
`ZIMMERMAN, and DOES 1-100,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR RESTITUTION,
`CIVIL PENALTIES, PRELIMINARY
`AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS,
`AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`Business & Professions Code
`§ 17200 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco and the District Attorney
`for the County of Los Angeles, authorized to protect the general public within the State of
`California from unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, bring this suit in the name of
`the People of the State of California. The People hereby allege the following:
`SUMMARY OF THE CASE
`The law firm Potter Handy LLP, dba “Center for Disability Access,” is unlawfully
`1.
`circumventing the California Legislature’s procedural reforms on abusive Unruh Civil Rights
`Act (“Unruh Act”) disabilities litigation. The firm does so by filing thousands of boilerplate,
`cut-and-paste federal-court lawsuits that falsely assert its clients have standing under the federal
`Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). By using false standing allegations to get an ADA
`injunctive-relief claim into federal court—where the Legislature’s procedural reforms on abusive
`Unruh Act litigation do not apply—and coupling the federal claim with a state-law Unruh Act
`claim, Potter Handy is able to avoid those reforms while demanding small businesses pay it the
`heavy damages available under the Unruh Act.
`Each year, Potter Handy files thousands of boilerplate “ADA/Unruh” lawsuits on
`2.
`behalf of a few repeat plaintiffs (“Serial Filers”) against California small businesses with little
`regard to whether those businesses actually violate the ADA. These lawsuits are financially
`onerous, in large part because the Unruh Act (but not its federal counterpart) allows Potter
`Handy to demand damages of at least $4,000 per alleged violation. Small businesses,
`particularly those owned by immigrants and individuals for whom English is a second language,
`who are often less familiar with the complexities of the American legal system, are rarely able to
`afford the risk and expense of defending themselves in court. As a result, each year Potter
`Handy uses ADA/Unruh lawsuits to shake down hundreds or even thousands of small businesses
`to pay it cash settlements, regardless of whether the businesses actually violate the ADA.
`As the Legislature has stated and codified into statute, the kind of abusive,
`3.
`boilerplate litigation that Potter Handy engages in not only harms small businesses, but also
`“unfairly taints the reputation of other innocent disabled consumers who are merely trying to go
`about their daily lives accessing public accommodations as they are entitled to have full and
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`equal access under the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.55.)
`Accordingly, California has repeatedly amended the Unruh Act to impose procedural reforms
`that prevent exactly this kind of blunderbuss approach to litigation, which benefits no one except
`the attorneys of Potter Handy. Most notably, between 2008 and 2016 the California Legislature
`imposed strict new pleading requirements and additional filing fees that only apply to “high-
`frequency” Unruh Act litigants like Potter Handy’s clients. The Legislature also created the
`Certified Access Specialist program (“CASp”), which incentivizes businesses to obtain
`accessibility inspections and proactively correct ADA violations. These reforms make it difficult
`or impossible for Potter Handy to bring the vast quantities of boilerplate Unruh Act suits that are
`its bread-and-butter. While these legislative reforms do not create barriers to honest plaintiffs
`and attorneys, they simply require too much detail (as well as verification of that detail under
`penalty of perjury) for unscrupulous firms whose business models rely on the ability to file
`thousands of boilerplate lawsuits alleging vague, generic violations in order to extract
`settlements from small businesses.
`However, California’s procedural reforms on abusive Unruh Act litigation only
`4.
`apply to cases filed in state court, not to federal court cases. Thus, Potter Handy has opted to
`circumvent these reforms by bringing ADA/Unruh cases in federal court. By asserting an
`injunctive-relief ADA claim to invoke federal court jurisdiction and coupling that with an Unruh
`Act claim so it can demand $4,000-per-violation damages, Potter Handy has continued with its
`business model of bombarding California’s small businesses with abusive boilerplate lawsuits,
`ignoring California’s procedural reforms. As one federal district court has stated, this scheme
`“ducks the burdens of state law but still reaps its benefits…significantly undermin[ing]
`California’s efforts to reform Unruh Act litigation.”1 And as the federal Ninth Circuit Court of
`Appeals stated in December 2021, in an appeal involving one of Potter Handy’s Serial Filer
`
`
`1 (Order Declining Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act Claim, Whitaker v. La
`Conq, LLC (C.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2019, No. 2:19-cv-07404).)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`cases, “the procedural strictures that California put in place have been rendered largely toothless,
`because they can now be readily evaded.”2
`If that were all, this story would end here. But Potter Handy’s boilerplate lawsuits
`5.
`are not clever lawyering that happened to find a hole in a well-intentioned statute. They are able
`to evade California’s procedural reforms only because they rely on false standing allegations,
`and their lawsuits are therefore unlawful under current law. To file cases in federal court, Potter
`Handy must satisfy the requirements of federal Article III standing in each and every
`ADA/Unruh case it files. Under federal law, in an ADA/Unruh case alleging that a business has
`a construction-related defect or physical barrier that violates the ADA, Potter Handy must allege
`that its client personally encountered an ADA violation at the business, was deterred or
`prevented from accessing the business because of it, and genuinely intends to return to the
`business after the barrier is removed.3
`But actually encountering barriers and returning to businesses after cases end is a
`6.
`time-intensive endeavor, and it is literally impossible for Potter Handy’s Serial Filer clients, at
`least some of whom are wheelchair-bound, to repeatedly travel to all of the thousands of
`businesses they sue, especially those that are located hundreds of miles from where they live.
`Indeed, Potter Handy’s Serial Filers frequently do not personally encounter barriers themselves
`(often conducting cursory “drive-bys” or having helpers or investigators go to businesses in their
`place) and they almost never return to the businesses they sue after the cases resolve.
`Therein lies Potter Handy’s lawbreaking: to keep up the volume of thousands of
`7.
`boilerplate cases necessary to sustain its business model, in each case the firm’s attorneys file,
`they intentionally include and adopt false allegations that the Serial Filer personally
`encountered a barrier at the business in question, was deterred or prevented from accessing
`the business because of it, and intends to return to the business after the violation is cured.
`The attorneys of Potter Handy, who are the Defendants in this matter, are well-aware that their
`
`
`2 (Arroyo v. Rosas (Dec. 10, 2021) – F.4th –, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36510, at *21, *23.)
`
`3 (See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (9th Cir. 2011) 631 F.3d 939, 953 (en banc).)
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`clients do not personally encounter barriers, are not deterred by them, and have no genuine intent
`to return to the businesses they sue. However, these attorney Defendants intentionally adopt
`false standing allegations in each of the Serial Filer cases they file in order to obtain and keep
`federal court jurisdiction, thereby avoiding the strict procedural reforms on abusive Unruh Act
`litigation that would apply in state court to make boilerplate litigation impossible.
`In intentionally adopting these false statements in order to get into federal court
`8.
`and avoid California’s Unruh Act reforms, Potter Handy’s attorneys violate California Rules of
`Professional Conduct 3.1 and 3.3, as well as the State Bar Act, Business and Professions Code
`section 6128(a) (“Section 6128(a)”), which prohibits an attorney from committing “deceit or
`collusion, or consent[ing] to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any
`party.” Each of these provisions applies to attorneys practicing in federal court in California.4 A
`violation of any one of these provisions, each of which is exempt from the litigation privilege,
`constitutes an unlawful business practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business
`and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (“UCL”).
`The public record and evidence gathered by the People confirm that Potter
`9.
`Handy’s business practice is to intentionally file cases containing false standing allegations in
`order to invoke federal jurisdiction. Potter Handy’s Serial Filers have repeatedly testified in
`depositions, with Potter Handy counsel present, that they do not have standing: they do not
`return to the businesses they sue or they cannot identify businesses they returned to afterward.
`Federal courts have awarded attorney’s fees to businesses and sanctioned Potter Handy
`attorneys, including named partner Russell Handy, for the firm’s bringing of frivolous or false
`standing allegations. Other federal courts, even without issuing sanctions or awarding attorney’s
`fees, have thrown out Serial Filer cases for lack of standing, holding that their allegations simply
`are not credible. Moreover, the astonishing number of cases Potter Handy files on behalf of the
`Serial Filers—over 800 federal cases on behalf of Serial Filer Orlando Garcia, approximately
`1,700 federal cases on behalf of Serial Filer Brian Whitaker, and thousands more on behalf of
`
`4 Attorneys practicing in federal courts in California are required to follow the standards of
`conduct set forth in the State Bar Act and California Rules of Professional Conduct.
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Chris Langer, Scott Johnson, Rafael Arroyo, and the various other Serial Filers—make it literally
`impossible for the Serial Filers to have personally encountered each listed barrier, let alone to
`intend to return to hundreds of businesses located hundreds of miles away from their homes.
`Reports from sued businesses corroborate what the depositions, federal court
`10.
`orders, and sheer volume of cases make clear. Business after business interviewed by the San
`Francisco District Attorney’s Office’s investigators reported being sued for barriers that could
`not possibly have been encountered by the Serial Filers. For example, while multiple Chinatown
`businesses were sued for allegedly having inaccessible outdoor dining tables during the early
`months of 2021, those businesses were open for takeout only during that time and had no dining
`tables at all—indoor or outdoor. Other businesses reviewed their security camera footage for the
`months in question and saw that the Serial Filers never went to their businesses at all. Still
`others were sued for alleged violations that objectively did not exist; for example, one
`Chinatown business was sued for allegedly having an illegally steep 12.5% ramp to its front
`door, when in fact the entranceway was nearly flat.
`Tragically, the human cost of Potter Handy’s fraudulent lawsuits is immense,
`11.
`representing a forced transfer of wealth from those least able to afford it to the pockets of the
`firm and the attorney Defendants. Once Potter Handy has filed a lawsuit and gotten into federal
`court on the back of its false standing allegations, the firm pressures its targets into settling,
`rarely resolving cases for less than $10,000 and often demanding much more. Potter Handy
`demands large cash settlements even where the business quickly fixes all potential violations, the
`case has no merit, the business has a recent CASp inspection and certificate,5 or paying the
`settlement would mean the business will fail. Potter Handy also runs up its attorney’s fees
`
`5 In fact, Potter Handy sometimes uses the fact that a business has had a CASp inspection as
`further justification for suing the business. See, e.g., Complaint, Garcia v. Tom Family
`Benevolent Ass’n, (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2021, No. 3:21-cv-05084) at ¶ 13 (“Additionally, there
`was a Certified Access Specialist (CASP) letter affixed to the business window, dated March 17,
`2017, during plaintiff’s visit. Defendants, through the CASP inspection, likely were made aware
`of the obligations they had to make sure the premises were compliant for persons with
`disabilities.”) By weaponizing the CASp process in its federal court cases, Potter Handy has
`further subverted the intent of the amended Unruh Act, which grants businesses certain
`advantages in state-court litigation for having obtained a CASp inspection.
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`(which it can recoup under the ADA if successful) to assert further pressure on its targets.
`Because it regularly costs between $50,000 or $100,000 to defend against an ADA/Unruh
`lawsuit, small “mom and pop” businesses have little choice but to submit and pay Potter Handy
`to leave them alone. After the business settles, the Serial Filer fails to return to the business, and
`the firm rarely if ever monitors the business’s compliance with the ADA and Unruh Act, despite
`that being the alleged basis for the lawsuit. Instead, Potter Handy and the Serial Filer simply
`move on to other targets, filing an ever-increasing number of new lawsuits in order to keep the
`firm’s revenues flowing.
`This unlawful scheme has allowed Potter Handy to extract an enormous amount
`12.
`of money from California’s small businesses. Based on the People’s review of the federal
`courts’ PACER filing system, a single one of Potter Handy’s Serial Filers, Orlando Garcia, has
`settled more than 500 federal ADA/Unruh lawsuits since December 2019. Assuming an average
`settlement figure of $10,000, that means that Potter Handy has extracted more than $5,000,000
`from small businesses based on a single Serial Filer’s cases in less than three years.
`Extrapolating to the many thousands of additional cases Potter Handy has filed on behalf of
`Brian Whitaker, Scott Johnson, and the other Serial Filers, it is reasonable to assume Potter
`Handy has drained tens of millions of dollars from California’s small businesses during the
`statute of limitations period alone. None of this would be possible if Potter Handy did not
`intentionally use false standing allegations to keep federal court jurisdiction and avoid
`California’s procedural reforms.
`The firm’s business practice of using false standing allegations to obtain federal
`13.
`court jurisdiction of lawsuits targeting the smallest businesses, including many businesses owned
`by immigrants, is unacceptable. As described infra, small businesses in San Francisco’s
`Chinatown and across the Bay Area, many owned by Asian-American immigrants, were barely
`beginning to recover from the slowdown in business caused by the COVID-19 pandemic when
`they were sued by Potter Handy. Despite Potter Handy’s suits being based on false standing
`allegations and thus frivolous, most of these businesses were forced to settle, further damaging
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`their economic viability. Some of these businesses are still operating at a loss, and others will
`take months to recoup the settlement figures.
`Potter Handy’s unlawful business practices cannot be tolerated and must be put to
`14.
`an end. Accordingly, the People bring this civil prosecution under the UCL to protect
`California’s small businesses from Potter Handy’s lawbreaking and fulfill the California
`Legislature’s policy goal of putting a halt to abusive Unruh Act litigation.
`PARTIES
`The People of the State of California (the “People”) bring this action by and
`15.
`through Chesa Boudin, District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and George
`Gascón, District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles.
`The People may bring a civil action to enjoin any person who engages, has
`16.
`engaged in, or proposes to engage in unfair competition, as defined in Business and Professions
`Code section 17200, and may seek civil penalties and restitution for each act of unfair
`competition. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17203, 17204, 17206.)
`The People bring this action without prejudice to any other action or claim that
`17.
`the People may have based on separate, independent, and unrelated violations arising out of
`matters or allegations that are not set forth in this Complaint.
`Defendant Potter Handy LLP, dba Center for Disability Access (“Potter Handy”),
`18.
`is a law firm, structured as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of
`California. Potter Handy’s principal place of business is located at 8033 Linda Vista Rd, Suite
`200, San Diego, CA 92111. Potter Handy files ADA lawsuits under the pseudonym “Center for
`Disability Access,” a name which, on information and belief, is intended to mislead businesses
`and the public into believing Potter Handy is a legitimate disability rights advocacy group when
`it is in fact a for-profit law firm.
`Defendant Mark Potter is a licensed California attorney who is the managing
`19.
`partner and founder of Potter Handy, and who practices law by, through, and at Potter Handy.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Defendant Potter oversees the firm’s personnel and maintains and reviews all the firm’s billing,
`in addition to personally litigating cases.6
`Defendant Russell Handy is a licensed California attorney who is a named partner
`20.
`of Potter Handy, and who practices law by, through, and at Potter Handy.
`Defendant Dennis Price is a licensed California attorney who is a partner of Potter
`21.
`Handy, works as a supervising and training attorney at the firm, and is involved in litigating the
`firm’s appeals of its Serial Filer cases. He practices law by, through, and at Potter Handy.
`Defendant Amanda Lockhart Seabock is a licensed California attorney who is a
`22.
`supervising attorney at Potter Handy, and who practices law by, through, and at Potter Handy.
`As of May 2021, Defendant Amanda Lockhart Seabock managed Potter Handy’s discovery
`team, supervised all ADA lawsuits the firm files in the Northern District of California, and
`supervised settlement matters throughout California.
`Defendants Christopher Seabock, Prathima Price, Raymond Ballister Jr., Phyl
`23.
`Grace, Christina Carson (aka Chris Carson), Elliott Montgomery, Faythe Gutierrez, Isabel Rose
`Masanque, Bradley Smith, Tehniat Zaman, and Josie Zimmerman are licensed California
`attorneys who practice law by, through, and at Potter Handy, or practiced law by, through, and at
`Potter Handy during the four years prior to the filing of this civil prosecution.
`The true names and capacities of the defendants sued in this Complaint under the
`24.
`fictitious names of Does 1-100 are unknown to the People at this time, and the People therefore
`sue said defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474.
`The People allege that defendants Does 1-100 are in some manner responsible for the events
`alleged herein. The People will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show the Does’ true
`names and capacities when these facts have been determined.
`
`
`6 Additional detail regarding Defendants Potter, Handy, Dennis Price, and Amanda Lockhart
`Seabock is supplied by a declaration submitted by Defendant Potter in a May 2021 Serial Filer
`case. This declaration is attached as Exhibit A to the People’s Complaint and incorporated by
`reference.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`25. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of Potter Handy or of
`Defendants, individually or collectively, unless otherwise specified, such allegation or
`allegations shall be deemed to mean the act of each Defendant acting jointly and severally.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Article VI,
`26.
`section 10 of the California Constitution.
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendant Potter Handy is
`27.
`incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in California, while the Defendants all
`work in Potter Handy’s California offices. Defendants have filed thousands of cases in courts
`within the State of California alleging that California businesses violated California’s Unruh Act.
`Defendants have thus taken advantage of the benefits and privileges of the laws of the State of
`California and have purposefully availed themselves of the California market.
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 393
`28.
`because Defendants’ violations of law that occurred in the City and County of San Francisco are
`part of the case upon which the People seek penalties imposed by statute and, independently,
`because Defendants’ business practices affect San Francisco consumers. Moreover, according to
`their recent pleadings, Defendants maintain a secondary office or facility within the City and
`County of San Francisco.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`THE LEGAL REGIME GOVERNING DISABILITIES LAWSUITS
`
`I.
`
`A.
`
`The Americans With Disabilities Act Creates a Private Enforcement System
`to Ensure Accessibility in Public Accommodations
`The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (as noted, “ADA”) is the bedrock
`29.
`federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. Signed by President
`George H.W. Bush with the statement “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling
`down,” the ADA’s purpose is to ensure that people with disabilities have the same rights and
`opportunities as everyone else. Title III of the ADA, which applies to such “public
`accommodations” as private businesses that serve members of the public, sets forth the general
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`rule that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and
`equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of
`any place of public accommodation[.]” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).)
`Title III of the ADA also sets specific rules for places of public accommodations,
`30.
`including rules relating to the construction of new buildings and the removal of architectural
`barriers from existing buildings. Notably, while buildings constructed for first occupancy after
`January 26, 1993 must be “readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, except
`where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements of
`such subsection,” buildings constructed prior to that date must only “remove architectural
`barriers…where such removal is readily achievable.”7
`To enforce the provisions of Title III, the ADA empowers both the U.S. Attorney
`31.
`General and private plaintiffs to file lawsuits for injunctive relief, including court orders to alter
`facilities to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. (42 U.S.C. § 12188(a).) Private
`plaintiffs are not entitled to recover damages in ADA lawsuits but may recover reasonable
`attorney’s fees if they prevail in litigation. (Ibid.; 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b).)
`
`B.
`
`California’s Unruh Act Supplements the ADA by Allowing Plaintiffs to
`Demand Damages of No Less Than $4,000 for Each ADA Violation They
`Encounter
`In 1992, California amended its State civil rights law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act
`32.
`(“Unruh Act”), to align with the federal ADA. As amended, the Unruh Act states that “[a]ll
`persons within the jurisdiction of the state are free and equal, and no matter what
`their…disability…are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
`privileges, or services in all businesses establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code, §
`51(b).) The Unruh Act further states that “[a] violation of the right of any individual under the
`federal Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990…shall also constitute a violation of this
`section.” (Civ. Code, § 51(f).)
`
`7 42 U.S.C. §§ 12183(a)(1), 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Pre-1993 buildings that are altered after
`January 26, 1992 must, to “the maximum extent feasible,” meet the “readily accessible to and
`usable by” standard applicable to new construction, but only with respect to the altered portion of
`the building. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2).
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Like the ADA, the Unruh Act allows a prevailing plaintiff to obtain injunctive
`33.
`relief and attorney’s fees. Unlike the ADA, however, the Unruh Act also allows private
`plaintiffs to recover “actual damages, and any amount that may be determined…up to a
`maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand
`dollars ($4,000).” (Civ. Code, § 52 (emphasis added).) This means that a disabled plaintiff
`filing a lawsuit in California may bring both a federal ADA claim for injunctive relief and a state
`law Unruh Act claim for damages, all for the same alleged set of facts—an “ADA/Unruh” suit.
`The ability to recover actual damages of no less than $4,000 per violation
`34.
`functions as a heavy incentive for California plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorneys to file Unruh Act
`suits—either as standalone cases in state court or piggybacked onto a federal ADA claim in
`federal court.
`
`C.
`
`The Unruh Act’s Provision for Damages Created an Unfortunate Side Effect:
`A Cottage Industry of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Who Specialize in Shaking Down
`Small Businesses for Money Using Threats of Unruh Act Litigation
`The combination of injunctive relief and damages allowed by combining federal
`35.
`and state claims into an ADA/Unruh suit has had an enormously positive effect by incentivizing
`plaintiffs’ attorneys and disabled individuals to bring suit to eliminate barriers in public
`accommodations. Unfortunately, the heavy monetary damages allowed by the Unruh Act also
`had the unintended side effect of incentivizing unscrupulous attorneys to file enormous numbers
`of boilerplate lawsuits against small businesses for the sole purpose of extracting cash
`settlements, without regard as to whether the alleged violations even exist, would have been
`voluntarily cured in the absence of a lawsuit, or would even be remedied through settlement.
`Anecdotal reports confirm the scale of this problem a decade ago. In 2010, ABC7
`36.
`Los Angeles reported on a serial plaintiff who had filed more than 500 ADA lawsuits, including
`one lawsuit where he reportedly alleged a restaurant’s bathroom mirror was too high, but later
`dismissed the case after surveillance footage showed he never visited the bathroom in question.8
`In March 2012, the Mountain Democrat reported that Pony Espresso, a small business in
`
`8 Man sues hundreds over disability violations, ABC7 Los Angeles (Sept. 8, 2010),
`<https://abc7.com/archive/7655664/>.
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Pollocks Pines, California, was forced out of business by an ADA lawsuit filed by Serial Filer
`Scott Johnson, a client of Defendants who has been repeatedly accused of not actually visiting
`the businesses he sues.9 That same month, the Orange County Register reported on a lawsuit
`filed by Chris Langer, another Serial Filer client of Defendants, against a small liquor store. The
`Register quoted an architect and ADA-compliance consultant who referred to Langer and
`Defendant Mark Potter as “drive-by litigants” who typically demanded $12,000 to settle a case;
`the article concluded that “[t]here’s great value in disabled-rights litigation, but the practice of
`just driving around and trying to pick up $4,000 (or $12,000) a pop sounds a lot more like a
`shakedown than a civil-rights movement.”10
`Indeed, even as early as 2011, as reported by the San Francisco Examiner, then-
`37.
`San Francisco Supervisor David Chiu had proposed reforms to rein in “an epidemic of lawsuits
`alleging ADA violations,” estimating that 4,809 ADA cases had been filed against California
`businesses since 2005. Then-Supervisor Chiu noted at the time that “There have been a handful
`of individuals who have made a living out of suing small businesses. It’s a cottage industry.” 11
`
`D.
`
`California Has Repeatedly Amended the Unruh Act to Rein in Abusive
`Litigation
`In part because of this problem, in 2008, the California Legislature enacted Senate
`38.
`Bill No. 1608, including the Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act
`(“CRASCA”), the first of a series of Unruh Act reforms intended to protect the rights of disabled
`persons while at the same time reducing unnecessary litigation. In Section 7, the Legislature
`stated as follows:
`
`
`9 Schultz, ADA attorney forces out small business Pollock, Mountain Democrat (March 1, 2012),
`<https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/ada-attorney-forces-out-small-business-pollock/>;
`Sacramento Area Attorney Indicted for Filing False Tax Returns, U.S. Dept. of J. (May 23, 2019,
`<https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/sacramento-area-attorney-indicted-filing-false-tax-
`returns>.
`
`10 Mickadeit, Disability lawsuits: Shakedown or legit?, Orange County Register (March 9, 2012),
`<https://www.ocregister.com/2012/03/09/disability-lawsuits-shakedown-or-legit/>.
`
`11 Chiu proposal could curb costly ADA disability access lawsuits in San Francisco, S.F.
`Examiner (Sept. 27, 2011), <https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/chiu-proposal-could-curb-
`costly-ada-disability-access-lawsuits-in-san-francisco/>.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4