ADA Litigation in Los Angeles: Defending Unruh Act and ADA Lawsuits Against Businesses

Published on: | by

Los Angeles remains a focal point for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuits, with claims targeting both physical barriers and digital inaccessibility of websites and mobile apps. California sees the highest number of ADA lawsuits filed each year compared to other states. The greater Los Angeles area in particular sees a very high number of the state’s filings, driven by serial plaintiffs and firms seeking statutory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and attorneys’ fees under Unruh and the ADA.

Core Legal Framework: ADA Title III and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act

Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189) prohibits discrimination in “places of public accommodation,” defined broadly to include hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and other common businesses offering goods or services to the public. Even older properties must at least remove architectural barriers when “readily achievable” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)), i.e., without undue difficulty or expense relative to the benefit. Newer construction and renovations bring a higher standard of compliance. It is a common misconception to believe the older properties are grandfathered in and do not need to comply with the ADA. Violations lead to injunctive relief (court orders to update the property) and attorney fees for the plaintiff under the ADA. Courts apply a nexus test in California: purely online businesses with no nexus to physical retail locations are not subject to the ADA (Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., 81 Cal. App. 5th 1026 (2022)). However, other jurisdictions hold otherwise, so a purely online business could be sued and held liable in certain other states.

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52) incorporates ADA violations (Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f)), allowing the additional recovery of statutory damages of at least $4,000 per occurrence. No pre-suit notice is required, although such a requirement has been proposed by legislative reform under SB-84 (2025).

For digital accessibility, courts often reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 or 2.2 to determine if a website is accessible. Mobile apps face similar scrutiny, with claims alleging failures in voice-over compatibility or closed captioning (28 C.F.R. § 36.303).

Physical ADA Lawsuits in Los Angeles

Physical claims under Title III and Unruh are ubiquitous. Many businesses have been sued multiple times, with plaintiffs alleging barriers like missing ramps, narrow aisles, or inaccessible restrooms (28 C.F.R. § 36.211). Serial plaintiffs often file dozens of lawsuits in a given year. Certain plaintiffs have filed thousands of ADA cases each, often following “drive-by” inspections for compliance. Cases are often settled due to the cost of litigation, but defenses are available (e.g., $142,584.90 awarded in a 2025 hotel defense).

Digital Accessibility Lawsuits: Websites and Mobile Apps

Digital filings have surged in recent years. Mobile apps, treated like websites, must ensure usability for disabled users (e.g., alt text, keyboard navigation). Projections indicate a steep rise in mobile app/SaaS claims, with California and New York leading other states.

Plaintiffs’ Law Firms Driving Litigation in Los Angeles

Several law firms specialize in ADA and Unruh filings generate a large percentage of this litigation:

  • Manning Law, APC (Joseph R. Manning Jr., Craig Cote) files dozens of physical and website cases monthly. Recent CA plaintiffs include Anthony Bouyer, Jesus Torres, Cesar Cotto, Rebecca Castillo, Sheila Biglang-Awa Castro, Armen Minassian, Nehemiah Kong, Jennifer Carbine, Michael Sandoval,
  • Cal. Equal Access Group (Jason Kim, Jason Yoon) focuses on physical access, often citing parking and entry violations. Recent CA plaintiffs include Lorraine Perez, Luz Zendejas, Clifton Walker, Moises Villalobos, Larry Dunn, Maria Garcia, Miriam Maldonado, Robert Cauley, Colton Bryant, Robert Mena, Julio Cruz, Kevin Cox, Robert E. Bentley, Yuri Doering, Cameron Harrell, K. Phillip Taylor, Angel Garcia, Ana Ventura, Sam Benford, Joshua Cuevas, Bernard Taruc, Mario Mendoza, Michael Harris, Jardine Gougis, Debra M. Wong, Dennis Cooper, Latanya Williams, Omar Luna, Cesar Acevedo, Edmond Neal, Marquise Bailey, Deondre Raglin, Lamar Myers, Korttney Elliott, Darwin Boggs, Nelson Chilin, Guri Gonzalez, Kenneth Davidson, and others.
  • Seabock Price, APC (Amanda Seabock, Christopher Seabock, Dennis Price) has been filing ADA lawsuits since 2023. Recent CA plaintiffs include Scott Johnson, Christopher Langer, Shonna Counter, and Luis Marquez
  • The Reddy Law Firm LLC (Prathima Reddy Price). Recent CA plaintiffs include Gabriela Cabrera, Orlando Garcia, and Jose Mendoza.
  • All Access Law Group (Irakli Karbelashvili). Recent CA plaintiffs include Dominika Bednarska, James Alger, Jackson Sherry, and Richard Henderson-Thomas.
  • Lightning Law (David Wakefield) files FHA claims against apartments. Plaintiffs include the United African Asian Abilities Club and James Lee.
  • Law Offices of Peter Strojnik (Peter Kristofer Strojnik) files claims mainly against hotels alleging parking, passenger loading zone, pool lift and other violations. The plaintiff is generally Theresa Brooke.

Targeted Industries for ADA Litigation

Plaintiffs often cluster filings by industry:

  • Hotels: Frequent targets for websites, parking, loading zones, and pool access claims.
  • Breweries: Rising suits over digital barriers, extending to wineries.
  • Restaurants and Bars: Dining tables, parking, and restroom issues.
  • Retail and E-Commerce: App and site inaccessibility.
  • Health and Beauty: Front desks, gym equipment, service counters, and parking.
  • Finance and Education: Parking, teller windows and entrances.
  • Automotive: Parking, signage, counters and websites.

Defending a Lawsuit

First, you should be aware that if you’ve been served with a lawsuit, you have 30 days to respond to the complaint if served in California State Court (i.e., Superior Court), 21 days if filed in Federal Court (i.e., US District Court). These dates are critically important and must not be ignored or the plaintiffs will take your default.

Second, it’s important to hire legal counsel experienced with ADA litigation, such as Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, which has handled thousands of cases. Your attorney can assess the complaint’s validity and gather relevant evidence.

Next, you should explore possible defenses to the claims. Many suits are filed without proper due diligence, and key allegations relied upon by the plaintiff may be incorrect. For example, the parking might be reserved for employees only, in which case ADA requirements applicable to customers would not apply. Alternative accommodations might also satisfy the law, or the website may already be accessible despite the plaintiff’s claims to the contrary.

For physical access cases, it might be a good idea to hire a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) to evaluate your property. This can also be a good way to prevent an ADA lawsuit before it’s filed by identifying and fixing ADA violations before a plaintiff has a chance to find them.

Similarly, for website claims, ensure compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2 AA). Automated overlay tools like accessiBe can identify issues (e.g., missing alt text) but often aren’t yet sufficient to ensure full site-wide ADA compliance.

Consider counterclaims. If the suit appears frivolous (e.g., boilerplate claims with false allegations), explore countersuits for fraud or abuse. Although these are hard and initially costly, courts have awarded attorneys fees to prevailing defendants. See here.

For help with an ADA or Unruh lawsuit, contact Stuart K. Tubis, Esq. at skt@jmbm.com or 415-984-9622.