Published on: | by

Section 55.54 Protections

For years, California businesses and their organizations have been trying to rein in the plethora of ADA lawsuits, particularly those filed by a handful of plaintiffs and their law firms to curb litigation abuse. Those trying to curb ADA litigation abuse have made several apparently important inroads.

One such inroad designed to curb litigation abuse is California Civil Code Section 55.54 which was enacted to provide protective measures against serial ADA lawsuits filed by “High Frequency Litigants.” If the plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant, as defined by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.55(b), then a defendant may seek a 90-day stay of the litigation, and an Early Neutral Evaluation. A high-frequency litigant is defined by a plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging construction-related accessibility violations within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. The process is incredibly simple, and requires the filing of a single form, checking off a few boxes. The most important rule is that the Section 55.54 application must be filed before or concurrently with the Answer, or responsive pleading, to the Complaint.

The goal of the Early Neutral Evaluation, and the 90-day stay, is for parties to reach early settlement. The Court will set forth the necessary procedures, documents, and goals for the early neutral evaluation. The Court may also require parties to conduct a joint inspection of the property in question.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

So Cal Equal Access Group (So Cal) files ADA lawsuits almost on a daily basis. By and large, these lawsuits filed in Federal Court focus on the lack of accessible parking, inaccessible paths of travel to the building entrances, inaccessible entry doors, transaction counters that are excessively high and bathrooms that fail to comply with the ADA and the California Building Code (CBC). Lately, the firm has set its sights on the auto repair industry in the greater Los Angeles area. The law firm has filed suits on behalf of Larry Dunn, Jardine Gougis, Cesar Acevedo and Moses Villalobos, among others.

These lawsuits are typically filed against building and business owners related to properties built long before the ADA was enacted in 1991. Under the ADA both building owners and business operators are jointly and severally liable to the disabled plaintiff which means the plaintiff can sue either the business owner or building owner or both. Of course, landlords typically place responsibility on the tenant for indemnification for violations of law in the operation of their business through their leases. However, this legal chestnut is of little moment to the plaintiff’s lawyers who sue both the landlord and business operator. They typically sue the landlord who may have no idea that these ADA and CBC violations exist. Landlords typically tender the defense and indemnification to the tenant which only works if the tenant has the wherewithal to pay to defend both parties. Continue ›

Published on: | by

California Senate Bill 585 (SB 585) seeks to achieve a balance between ensuring accessibility for individuals with disabilities and protecting small businesses from exploitative litigation. The draft bill proposes a “right to cure” period, allowing businesses with 50 or fewer employees 120 days to rectify alleged construction-related accessibility violations before facing statutory damages, attorney’s fees, or costs.

Background

Under existing California law, businesses found in violation of construction-related accessibility standards can be subject to minimum statutory damages starting at $4,000 per violation, along with attorney’s fees. This framework has led to a surge in lawsuits, particularly in California where statutory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act incentivize high levels of litigation. See Unruh Civil Rights Act Basics. Many of these lawsuits have targeted small businesses for minor infractions, resulting in significant financial burdens.

Provisions of SB 585

SB 585 introduces several key measures that would apply to business with 50 of fewer employees anytime in the past 3 years:

  • Notice Requirement: Plaintiffs must serve a letter to the business detailing each alleged violation of accessibility standards before filing a lawsuit; and
  • 120-Day Cure Period: Upon receiving the letter, businesses have 120 days to correct the specified violations before the plaintiff can file a lawsuit.
  • Limitation on Liability: If the business remedies the violations within the cure period, it is not liable for statutory damages, plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, or costs related to those violations.
  • Prevention of Circumvention: Plaintiffs cannot bypass these provisions by seeking general discrimination damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if the claim is based on physical accessibility standards under California law.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

On our ADA Compliance & Defense Blog, we have written extensively about Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuits. Many such lawsuits are filed by a small handful of serial plaintiffs and their law firms who actively seek out physical locations and websites of businesses that are allegedly not fully accessible. Once found, the plaintiff will sue the business and/or the landlord for disability discrimination. For example, a plaintiff might sue 3 businesses in a week because the accessible parking slope was above 2.1% or the website was not accessible for blind users’ screen reading software. In such cases, the plaintiff typically seeks injunctive relief (a court order requiring compliance), statutory damages of $4,000 per occurrence, and attorneys’ fees.

There are various defenses to such cases that my team and I explore when defending a client who has been sued. See my recent articles on that topic:

Common Defenses to Unruh Civil Rights Act and ADA Lawsuits (Part 1)
by Stuart Tubis

California Unruh Civil Rights Act Law Basics
by Stuart Tubis

If you or your business has been named as a defendant in such a lawsuit, don’t panic. Take a deep breath and then reach out to me (skt@jmbm.com; 415-984-9622) or other experienced defense counsel soon since there are important deadlines triggered once a case has been filed and served. Complaint letters are sometimes sent before litigation is filed, so it’s best to respond to such letters rather than waiting for a lawsuit to be filed. Don’t ignore pre-litigation ADA demand letters!

For informational purposes, based on information available online, here is a list of law firms and plaintiffs who have or currently do file disability discrimination lawsuits:

Manning Law APC

Attorneys:

  • Joseph Manning, Esq., Michael Manning, Esq., Craig Cote, Esq., Phyl Grace, Esq.

Plaintiffs:

  • James Rutherford, Anthony Bouyer, James Shayler, Carmen John Perri, George Avalos, Suzanne Na Pier, Poupak Barekat, Kayla Reed, Perla Mageno, Jennifer Carbine, Rebecca Castillo, Cesar Cotto, Gabriela Cabrera, Jesus Torres

So. Cal. Equal Access Group

Attorneys:

  • Jason Kim, Esq., Jason Yoon, Esq.

Plaintiffs:

  • Leemanuel Weilch, Mister Bailey, Robert Cauley, Deondre Raglin, Colton Bryant, Kimberly Frazier, Ana Ventura, Edmond Neal, Sam Benford, Melanie Delapaz, Korttney Elliot, Hee Soon Park, Latanya Williams, Luz Zendejas, Michael Rhambo, Kee Sook Ahn, Roy Yuin, In Sun Kil, Ignacio Vera, Yeoung Lee, Larry Dunn, Joshua Cuevas, Gabriel Dorsey, Jeremy Holland, Lamar Myers, Maria Garcia, Miguel Hernandez, Oscar Magallanes, Moises Villalobos, Jesus Garcia, Dennis Cooper, Juan Valencia, Nelson Chilin, Miriam Maldonado, Marquise Bailey, Alvaro Orosco, Guri Gonzalez, Yuri Doering, Mario Mendoza

Continue ›

Published on: | by

SF-Books-300x200

When facing a lawsuit under The California Unruh Civil Rights Act or Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), businesses and property owners should be aware of potential legal defenses that may be available to them. The law mandates that public accommodations (i.e., most businesses open to the public) be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Violations can lead to costly lawsuits and legal battles. However, there are many available defenses that defendants can raise to win lawsuits or mitigate liability. Here are a few of the most common legal defenses to consider (although there are others that you should discuss with your attorney):

  1. No Ownership, Operation or Control (Incorrect Party)

First, businesses and landlords are often incorrectly named in accessibility lawsuits. However, a business or landlord cannot be liable for property or website conditions that it does not own, operate or control. For example, a tenant cannot be held liable for areas of a parking lot that it does not lease and cannot legally alter. This often occurs in large shopping centers. JMBM was responsible for setting precedent in this area at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal in the case Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC (2015) 780 F.3d 1260 (Case No. 12-56520). You must first determine if the correct party was named in the lawsuit.

  1. Compliance or Equivalent Facilitation

Sometimes plaintiffs file lawsuits alleging that there are “barriers to access” (i.e., violations) that do not exist. For example, businesses open to the public are generally required to provide an accessible entrance. But not every entrance needs to be accessible. A plaintiff might allege that the property lacks an accessible entrance not realizing one exists on the other side of the building. Certain serial Unruh plaintiffs now often file lawsuits alleging that a website is inaccessible to them as blind users. They or their counsel use automated testing tools, such as the WAVE Tool or Axe, to test the website for accessibility compliance. However, these tools are notorious for producing false positives – apparent violations that are not actual barriers and don’t violate the law. Therefore, it is important to assess the merits of the claims. There are many detailed, technical rules regarding the dimensions, slope, position, color, contrast and other aspects of accessible facilities. Thus, it is crucial to be familiar with the ADA standards and relevant rules in this area before making a determination about liability.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Peter Strojnik (AKA P. Kristofer Strojnik) is an attorney based out of Phoenix, Arizona who files many accessibility lawsuits on behalf of his client, Theresa Brooke. According to publicly filed litigation documents, the office is located on East Camelback Road in Phoenix. Peter Strojnik has years of experience filing these types of cases against businesses and landlords regarding alleged violations of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Each lawsuit generally includes a summons as a cover page informing you that you have been sued and must respond. It also contains the “VERIFIED COMPLAINT” with “Jury Trial Demanded,” which generally looks something like this:

Verified-Complaint

The complaints usually state in the first paragraph that “Plaintiff Theresa Brooke is a married woman. Plaintiff is legally disabled, and is therefore a member of a protected class under the ADA.”

It might further state under the “Allegations” section that “Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hotel does not have a compliant access aisle at the passenger loading zone adjacent to the hotel lobby in violation of Sections 209 and 503 of the 2010 Standards.”

There are specific accessibility requirements applicable to most businesses and places open to the public as outlined in the ADA and California law. These are provided in detail within the 2010 ADA Standards published by the Department of Justice (DOJ). A passenger loading zone is not always required under the ADA. Where passenger loading zones are provided, at least one accessible passenger loading zone is required in every continuous 100 linear feet of loading zone or fraction thereof. Compliance is required only where areas are specifically designed or designated for passenger loading, such as those at airports, many hotels, and convention centers. But it’s important to note that not all areas designated for a brief stop constitute passenger loading zones. There are specific measurements and details applicable when accessible passenger loading zones are required. Continue ›

Published on: | by

The Reddy Law Firm LLC is a relatively new law firm that started filing accessibility lawsuits on behalf of various plaintiffs alleging violations of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act. Though a relatively new ADA plaintiff’s lawyers, the firm is an offshoot of Potter Handy, from San Diego.  The lawsuits generally reference the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well.

Generally, each of these lawsuits are filed on behalf of one of several serial plaintiffs, who file many similar cases each year. Some serial ADA plaintiffs in California have been known to file hundreds, sometimes thousands of lawsuits each against various businesses.

The Reddy Law Firm has filed Unruh litigation on behalf of these plaintiffs:

  • Meryl Pomponio
  • Orlando Garcia
  • Brian Whitaker

These lawsuits show no signs of stopping. Each lawsuit includes a summons as a cover page informing you that you have been sued and must respond. It also contains the complaint itself, which generally looks something like this: Continue ›

Published on: | by , and

In 2023, more than 1.4 million plug-in electric cars were sold in the U.S. The electric vehicle share of the total U.S. market was 7.6%, which is up from 5.9% the prior year, and expected to hit 31% by 2050. Given these numbers, it is inevitable that the motor vehicle industry will become fully electric, and the U.S. Access Board has taken strong note of this shift in the industry.

On February 14, 2013, the Access Board issued a notice of intent to establish an advisory committee on electric vehicle charging stations (“EVCS”) to create a proposed set of rules for accessible design. The Access Board has already accepted comments and input from the public on this issue, and as recently as January 31, 2024, held a meeting to discuss the finalization of its proposed rule on EVCS accessible design. In early February 2024, the Access Board voted to submit the draft rule text to the Office of Management & Budget (“OMB”), and the rule is currently under OMB review, which is the next step in the rulemaking process. If the rule is approved by the OMB, the Desk Officer will notify the appropriate Federal Register Liaison Officer (“FRLO”) that the rulemaking has been approved for publication in the Federal Register. Continue ›

Published on: | by

Marty Orlick, Chair of JMBM’s ADA Compliance & Defense Group, was recently interviewed by ABC7 for a news report regarding the impact of serial ADA litigants on small businesses. The segment focused on a group of businesses in Santa Paula, California, who have been hit with lawsuits alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The significant financial penalties imposed by these lawsuits threaten to close already struggling stores and restaurants.

During the segment, Marty discussed the California Unruh Civil Rights Act which requires businesses and public accommodations to provide equal access to their services and facilities. He explained that the Unruh Act “allows a plaintiff to recover $4,000 per occurrence every time they went to a particular business, or every time they thought of going but they realize there were barriers and they couldn’t get served.” The Unruh Act is often abused by serial plaintiffs who file hundreds of lawsuits every year, each claiming thousands of dollars in statutory damages.

These serial lawsuits can be incredibly damaging for businesses and are the antithesis of genuine legal action by advocates trying to make their communities more accessible.

You can watch the full ABC7 news report here.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) were recently updated to version 2.2, adding new considerations for businesses seeking to make their websites accessible. As most business have an online presence, there are some critical requirements of WCAG 2.2 that all business owners should know.

The WCAG standards, published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), are often referenced by courts in the US when deciding whether a website complies with the ADA or Unruh Civil Rights Act. The new version WCAG 2.2 adds the following requirements:

  • 2.4.11/2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured: Ensures keyboard focus indicators (such as the blinking cursor or focus box around buttons and links) remain visible despite pop-ups or other content, with a stricter AAA version demanding complete unobscuring. See the example below:ADA-Website
  • 2.4.13 Focus Appearance: Defines technical standards for the keyboard focus indicator outline for low-vision users.
  • 2.5.7 Dragging Movements: Requires alternative ways to complete actions if they involve dragging, except for essential functionality.
  • 2.5.8 Target Size: Provides minimum size requirements for clickable elements like buttons and links.
  • 3.2.6 Consistent Help: Ensures help functionalities (e.g., company contact details or self-help option) remain in the same place across all pages for screen reader users.
  • 3.3.7 Redundant Entry: Auto-populates or allows re-selection of previously entered information to aid users with cognitive or memory disabilities.
  • 3.3.8/3.3.9 Accessible Authentication: Prohibits cognitive function tests during authentication, with the AAA version removing more exceptions.

Continue ›