Lawsuit to block California ADA abuse laws on thin ice

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A California Court of Appeals presiding justice said on Tuesday that she saw no reason why the court should revive a lawsuit filed by three wheelchair-bound men over a series of laws aimed at cracking down on abuses of Americans with Disabilities Act.

“My clients are serial litigators,” plaintiffs’ attorney Dennis Price, a co-founder of the firm Seabock Price, which specializes in ADA lawsuits, told the three-judge panel. “They are incredibly unpopular.”

But, he added, “constitutional rights cannot be burdened by overuse.”

Presiding Justice Helen Zukin called Price’s argument “not persuasive.”

“This is something that should be directed toward the Legislature,” Zukin told Price. “I do not see a constitutional violation here.”

Passed in 1990, the landmark federal Americans with Disabilities Act includes a provision allowing private plaintiffs to sue businesses and government entities for ADA violations — a set of stairs without a ramp, a parking lot without an accessible space, or a bathroom without an accessible stall.

In most states, plaintiffs can only secure injunctive relief and attorneys fees. But a California law gives winning plaintiffs an automatic $4,000 per violation. This spurred a small cottage industry of serial plaintiffs, who sue dozens of businesses for numerous violations, however picayune — a toilet paper dispenser installed five inches too low, or an accessible parking space a foot too narrow.

Advocates say these private action provisions are the only way to ensure that disabled people aren’t shut out of many public spaces, while critics argue the stream of nuisance litigation has exponentially increased the cost of running a business in California.

According to the California Commission on Disability Access, just over half of all construction-related ADA suits filed between 2012 and 2014 were filed by just two law firms, and 14 plaintiffs filed 46% of them. According to the Legislature, many complaints “are frequently filed against small businesses on the basis of boilerplate complaints, apparently seeking quick cash settlements rather than correction of the accessibility violation.”

The state has tried to curb this rampant litigation by passing a number of laws. One banned prelitigation letters demanding money for ADA violations; another reduced damages when small businesses take steps to address violations; another requires plaintiffs to provide certain legal documents to defendants as a condition of filing suit.

In 2023, three disabled men — Byron Chapman, Jose Madriz and Christopher Langer — sued to block the laws. In their complaint, filed in LA Superior Court, they say the laws have not had their intended effect.

“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,” they say in their complaint. “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.”

A judge granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in 2024.

“The high-frequency litigant statutes, which require the inclusion of minimal information regarding the alleged violation and a high-frequency litigant, disallow a prelitigation demand for money, and require a separate filing fee, are narrowly tailored and necessary to further the compelling state interests of (1) preventing courts from becoming burdened with lawsuits ‘seeking quick cash settlements rather than correction of the accessibility violation’ and (2) maintaining the reputation ‘of other innocent disabled consumers who are merely trying to go about their daily lives accessing public accommodations,” the judge wrote.

On appeal Tuesday, Price told the Second Appellate District justices that his clients should have at least allowed the case to proceed toward a trial, where he would have been able to conduct discovery into how the Legislature came to certain findings, which he said were based on “animus.” Certain findings of fact they made, Price said, were “based on no evidence.”

Price argued that, among other things, the so-called “high frequency litigation statutes” were aimed at only a handful of litigants, including his three clients. This, he said, amounts to a civil rights violation.

But Justice Audra Mori said she saw no reason why serial litigants would be treated like a protected class, and asked Price to cite any legal authority that would support that argument. Price appeared unable to do so, but returned to argument that the First Amendment guarantees the right to petition and shouldn’t be “burdened.”

“There’s no ban on this type of litigation,” Zukin countered.

California Deputy Attorney General David Green submitted on the tentative ruling without offering argument. The tentative ruling was not made final and was taken under submission by the panel, which also included Justice Audrey Collins.

Some in the Legislature want to crack down even harder on ADA serial litigation. A state senator has introduced Senate Bill 84, a “right to cure” law which would give businesses accused of any ADA violation 120 days to fix the problem and avoid litigation.

Follow @hillelaron