LOS ANGELES (CN) — A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Tuesday declined a request by three wheelchair-bound men to block several provisions in California law that limit the right to sue or threaten to sue businesses over violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In a short tentative ruling, adopted as final without oral arguments, Judge Robert Broadbelt found the plaintiffs had not shown that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their lawsuit, and even if they had, they hadn't shown that allowing the laws, which have all been in effect for at least eight years, would cause them irreparable harm.
A handful states including California give people the right to file lawsuits against businesses, property owners and governmental jurisdictions over conditions that restricted disability access — say, for example, stairs without a wheelchair ramp, or no parking spot reserved for a disabled person. Though advocates say these private action provisions are the only way to ensure that disabled people aren't shut out of many public spaces, critics argue they have encouraged a cottage industry of serial litigants, and have exponentially increased the cost of running a small business.
According to the California Commission on Disability Access, which tracks ADA litigation, just over half of all construction-related ADA suits filed between 2012 and 2014 were filed by just two law firms, and 46% of all the suits were filed by just 14 plaintiffs. According to the Legislature, many of these lawsuits "are frequently filed against small businesses on the basis of boilerplate complaints, apparently seeking quick cash settlements rather than correction of the accessibility violation.”
Many of the limits passed by the Legislature between 2008 and 2015 were aimed at curbing serial ADA litigants or ADA abuse, as some defense attorneys have dubbed it. One such law banned pre-litigation letters demanding money for ADA violations. Another reduced damages when small businesses take steps to address violations. A 2015 amendment to California's ADA law forces plaintiffs to provide certain legal documents to defendants as a condition of filing suit.
According to the complaint filed by the three disability advocates, the laws have had no effect on the number of ADA lawsuits filed in California, which has actually increased. The use of demand letters, meanwhile, has "shrunk to nearly zero." The laws have also, according to the complaint, empowered larger law firms.
"The number of cases filed is up, the number of attorneys filing these cases is down, and the ability to enforce these laws is now largely confined to a near monopoly of attorneys able to front these additional costs, restricting the choices of plaintiffs who wish to seek new counsel," the complaint reads. "In effect, these laws have created a world where law firms possess substantial power over their clients and plaintiffs have had their ability to shop for new counsel virtually eliminated."
The three plaintiffs in the case — Byron Chapman, Jose Madriz and Christopher Langer — are all confined to a wheelchair, and all of them regularly file lawsuits under the ADA. "Langer has hauled hundreds of businesses into court to challenge their failures to comply with the law," according to the complaint, while Madriz "aggressively enforces his rights when encountering inaccessibility in his daily life." Chapman "does not shy away from litigation," though he does send businesses warning letters before suing.
In their opposition to the preliminary injunction, lawyers for state Attorney General Rob Bonta said the laws being challenged were "enacted to prevent unscrupulous attorneys from abusing California’s disability laws" and to add safeguards when “high-frequency litigants” — individuals who have filed 10 or more construction-related cases within the last 12 months — sue.
The judge denied a motion for a temporary restraining order in October. The case is still live, and can, in theory, still proceed to a trial.
Follow @hillelaron
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
