California Cities Sue Law Firm Accused of Abusing the ADA To Target Small Minority Businesses
San Francisco and Los Angeles insist in suit that likely tens of millions have been illegitimately squeezed from small businesses by ADA plaintiffs without proper legal standing.

The cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles this week filed a civil suit against the San Diego-based law firm Potter Handy, claiming it is illegally filing thousands of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims around the state without the legal standing required.
The law firm is sneakily getting around California's Unruh Act, the cities insist, whose procedural requirements would in many cases forbid these cases from getting to state court. The Unruh Act also allows plaintiffs to hit ADA violators with a minimum $4,000 damages demand per violation above and beyond any settlement, unlike the federal ADA.
Potter Handy tries to have it both ways, the lawsuit insists. "By using false standing allegations to get an ADA injunctive-relief claim into federal court—where the [California] 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."
To have proper legal standing, the cities insist, Potter Handy's client must have "personally encountered an ADA violation at the business" and prove he "was deterred or prevented from accessing the business because of it, and genuinely intends to return to the business after the barrier is removed."
The lawsuit insists 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."
Since the firm's allegedly harmed clients "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," Potter Handy is thus also violating state laws that prohibit "deceit or collusion, or consent[ing] to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party."
The complaint from the cities insists evidentiary records already back up their claims, including that "Federal courts have [previously] awarded attorney's fees to businesses and sanctioned Potter Handy attorneys…for the firm's bringing of frivolous or false standing allegations. Other federal courts…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…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."
Two of the plaintiffs in thousands of such Potter Handy cases live in Los Angeles, but according to the lawsuit, L.A.-area courts began to get wise to them and started dismissing their suits. So one such serial filer "tapered off his activities in Los Angeles in early 2021" and the firm switched to filing "an enormous number of federal cases on his behalf in federal courts in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, eventually reaching over 500 new cases filed between January 2021 and February 2022."
Similarly, another such serial filer "on whose behalf Potter Handy filed nearly 500 physical-barrier ADA/Unruh cases in Los Angeles's federal courts beginning in 2019, suddenly stopped initiating cases there in early 2021….Defendants began filing…over 320 physical-barrier ADA/Unruh cases in the… Northern District of California in a ten-month period from May 2021 to March 2022" on that other man's behalf.
The cities find this very suspicious, especially given that both men who suddenly got so ADA-litigious in the Bay Area live in Los Angeles County. This shift in the places they suddenly allegedly faced personal ADA-reparable barriers to access "could only have been coordinated by and at the direction of" Potter Handy. "Moreover, it underscores the fact that the Serial Filers' lawsuits are not intended to remedy ADA violations personally encountered by the Serial Filers in their day-to-day lives in their own communities, but to maximize financial returns for Defendants and the Serial Filers themselves by targeting vulnerable small businesses in plaintiff-friendly judicial venues."
The cities argues they are standing up for a beleaguered minority being targeted by Potter Handy: "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." The cities believe that tens of millions have been extracted from small businesses in California via this one firm's suits.
Dennis Price of Potter Handy told Courthouse News that "the allegation that we targeted any particular community is a heinous lie and not supported by any evidence…our cases are filed throughout the state. They don't target any particular neighborhood or business."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
California Cities Sue Law Firm Accused of Abusing the ADA To Target Small Minority Businesses
So, wait a fucking second. This ONLY became a problem when they ruffled the feathers of black people?
Exactly. California and all California's deserve to burn
Reap the whirlwind, motherfuckers.
Sociopaths, Unite!
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acc. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of (res23) income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
.
More information. >> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
The lawsuit insists 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."
This is kind of enraging. This has been Standard Operating Procedure in California for decades. And now the government that enabled this is going after the law firm, because of disparate impact... or something.
I'm curious to know how the CA cities filing this lawsuit could win it without it affecting the entirety of these types of lawsuits, regardless of the melanin levels of the business owners.
We got a guy disbarred in Southern California a while back for doing this sort of thing. They used to go after the abusers, period.
But that was before the last dozen years where we've been a Democrat supermajority.
I remember listening to one of the Serial Filers on the Ken and Jon show back over a decade ago. It was fucking hilarious listening to him justify getting thousands of dollars from a business because it didn't have a bar in the restroom stall and exactly XX inches from the floor.
That was over a decade ago.
A local pie shop run by a single family farmer was hit because some counter was an inch too high. I had long since been disgusted with these ADA parasites, but that changed it from theoretical to personal.
These Serial Filers sound like they need to take their wheelchairs cliff diving. At the Grand Canyon.
America really needs more revenge killings to deter this type of behavior. I guarantee you the lawyers are cowards and wouldn't dare pull this shit if it meant going face to face outside a courtroom.
Agreed...hate them...they are cocksuckers of the highest level.
I dunno, maybe these newfangled Equal Protection and anti-discrimination type amendments and laws?
I mean, kind of like how challenges to political gerrymandering often have to file as objections to racial gerrymandering?
Umm, Get with the law.
Regardless of whatever color you claim to be.
If you are not ADA compliant then you deserve to get sued. Good and hard.
Note, I once worked for a company that made a good fortune off the ADA rules that forced many businesses to spend money on upgrades. So yes, I am biased and my opinion should be ignored in this case.
The sentiment behind the ADA might seem admirable, but it's morphed into something far different and incredibly onerous in practice.
The 'ADA' applies to far less buildings than most people think it does.
There are a lot of different standards out there for accessibility compliance, and they vary by the type of building and location, and who owns and operates it.
Much like Title 9, the ADA really only applies to public accommodation buildings that receive federal funds, so that would normally include most federal buildings to which the public has access, or is required to be able to access, like courthouses, and also very many state government buildings.
Then you have the ABA - the Architectural Barriers Act - which applies to other federal facilities such as military bases and office buildings and the like, even though they might not be open to the general public. It's similar to the ADA rules, but different. And, it typically doesn't apply to state or private businesses.
The International Building Code, which is adopted in most metropolitan areas in the US, recognizes a different standard, ANSI 117.1 . It's a bit more strict in some areas and less so in others. It's also updated more frequently than the ADA or ABA. Every 3 years or so instead of every 10.
Then you have states like California, Illinois, and New York, who don't just have their own version of the building code (they do) but also their own version of accessibility standards. Our method of choosing which standard to follow is to apply the most strict standard potentially applicable.
Generally speaking, if you own a business that is existing and doesn't have these accommodations, you will not be required to do anything to meet them until such time as you either remodel the building substantially or build new. It doesn't stop people from suing you, but it should end at the first court appointment.
Get with the law...I am biased and my opinion should be ignored in this case.
Based on your revealed understanding of property rights and moral authority your opinion should be ignored on more than just this.
the whole ADA "requirements" thing is a joke anyway. Not all "handicapped" people need the identical requirement in every place of business. Yes, enough space for a normal sized wheelchair to get in is fine. But a countertop one inch more/less on height than what some gummit dweeb decided it should be decades ago? Get real. Small businesses and it seems most of those fleeced by the Handy Boiys in their faux lawsuits, have a lot of exemptions and such, too. WHO decided just how t=high the counters MUST be in every business, anyway, and on what basis. I know guy who, if he could stand up (he can't) he'd be well bove six foot tall. Then there is the petitie woman who's head, if she and the one noted above could stand up, would not even come up to his armpits. Same counter height for both? Get real. This one size fits all or we'll sue is a sick perversion.
So apparently minorities outrank the disabled on the oppression hierarchy, at least in California.
How can someone in a wheelchair have standing?
Why do minorities hate people with disabilities?
The Army doesn't. See "It Makes a Fellow Proud to be a Soldier" by Tom Lehrer.
The first thing legislators should consider when writing new laws is "what could possibly go wrong?", because it will.
Californians, to Brian's discomfiture, clearly understand that the whole purpose of ADA-type legislation is to weaponize coercion to generate hatred and resentment of the differently-abled. California, you'll recall, was the driving force behind those embarrassing Chinese and Japanese Exclusion laws that helped upset the already crashing economy Grover Cleveland inherited from the second sumptuary-law prohibitionist he defeated.
Scum. Grifters. California.
When are the plaintiffs going to get sued?
While no fan of LA or SanFram, I’m with them on this one. These parasite ADA lawyers are just the newest version of ‘slip-n-fall’ schiesters. They do nothing but steal money from municipalities and small business. They should be disbarred.
There is nothing "new" about these sub-human bottom-feeding scum believe me. I've had the displeasure of crossing their pimple-arsed faces a couple of times in litigation and the only way to get rid of them is to waive a thousand dollar bill in their faces ($20 goes to the "client").
I read the entire post. I thought that, this supposedly being a libertarian publication, somewhere in the post the author would say something like: "A private business should be free to provide whatever handicapped accommodations it wants, or not provide any." Nope, there was nothing like that. Very disappointing.
"Bottom-Feeders i.e. the Law of Unintended Consequences i.s. No Good Deed Goes Unpunished."