Am I reading this wrong?

[quincy]

Thank you so much for your response! Getting a lawyer is not an option right now, I am going to have to represent myself so the information is greatly appreciated!

Yes the claim is that, due to the violations of the ADA, the clients rights have been violated and according to Unruh Civil Rights Act he is entitled to monetary damages but he is ALSO requesting injunctive relief. My argument is that the violations of the ADA are not there, I measured everything myself and checked all the guidlines, all of these claims are false.

This is what they are claiming:

• that parking spaces for the disabled are not properly signed - this is not true, they meet all ADA guidlines
• that the signs are not the right size - they are
• that the free standing signs located at the interior end of parking space are not 80" above the finish grade – they are.
• that the van accessible spaces, are not marked "VAN ACCESSIBLE" – they are.
• Tow away signs at each entrance to parking area or adjacent to accessible parking spaces are not there – they are.
• that the parking spaces for the disabled are not proper dimensions - they are
• that the number of spaces provided for the disabled are inadequate - this is not true - they meet ADA guidelines for the size of the lot.
• that there are no accessible spaces at least 8 feet wide with an access aisle at least 5 feet wide. This is not accurate, there are actually two spaces that meet these requirements.
• that none of the parking stalls provided for the disabled had a “$250 fine” warning signs posted. This is true but as the parking lot has not been renovated since before 2008 so it is my understanding that this is not required.
• that the route is greater than 200’ in length - it is not...that it is less than 60" in width - this is not true.
• that my business has failed to maintain, in operable working condition, the features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. This is not accurate. My business has provided multiple ADA compliant alternatives including curb side service, home delivery and an alternative location.
• that he has personally encountered these barriers; however, he has never made an attempt to contact my business or take advantage of our services.
• that we are an inaccessible facility that has denied him full equal access and that this has caused him difficulty, discomfort and embarrassment. No denial was made, our facility has a multitude of ADA compliant alternatives which would allow him full and equal access to our services.

THIS GUY IS AN ABSOLUTE SCAM ARTIST!!!!

I read of one disabled fellow in California who has been active filing ADA-violation lawsuits against numerous businesses, and he has been successful with his suits.

I believe he was one reason why changes in the California laws have been considered. There are more than a few "scam artists" who have ignored the intent of the laws for profit.

I am not a Californian but we have a few forum members who are (Zigner, CdwJava to name two) and they might be able to provide some insight and also refer you to organizations in your area that might be able to assist you with your defense. Law schools can be a good source of assistance.

 

[briana.askew]

I read of one disabled fellow in California who has been active filing ADA-violation lawsuits against numerous businesses, and he has been successful with his suits.

I believe he was one reason why changes in the California laws have been considered. There are more than a few "scam artists" who have ignored the intent of the laws for profit.

I am not a Californian but we have a few forum members who are (Zigner, CdwJava to name two) and they might be able to provide some insight and also refer you to organizations in your area that might be able to assist you with your defense. Law schools can be a good source of assistance.

Yes I believe i read the same article. I also read that one law firm had done it so many times without cause that it was basically being looked at as criminal activity and that another lawyer is taking up a RICO suit against them. Changes to the laws are being reviewed for this reason and hopefully they pass soon to stop these people from taking advantage of business owners who simply don't know they are being scammed.

Thank you for that! I will try to find those users and see if they might be willing/able to help. Thank you again!

 

[quincy]

Here are links to California's Unruh and to the CDPA:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=51
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=1.&title=&part=2.5.&chapter=&article
Apparently your former Governor Brown tried to address the "drive-by" ADA lawsuit problem by signing Senate Bill 269 in 2014, which eliminated the presumption that an ADA plaintiff had experienced an issue with a business prior to filing suit. Now a plaintiff must show they had business with the business.

I guess that has not been enough to stop a few devious souls from filing suits anyway.

Good luck.

 

[adjusterjack]

THIS GUY IS AN ABSOLUTE SCAM ARTIST!!!!

Nevertheless, being sued in Superior Court means that you have to file a written answer to all the allegations and do it in the proper manner to preserve your defenses and move for dismissal.

If this plaintiff has filed 8 lawsuits in the past two months then chances are that one or more of them already contain written answers to the complaints, possibly written professionally by a defendant's attorney. I suggest you go to the courthouse and pull all those files and make copies of the answers. Following the same formats is probably the only way you'll get close to getting this right without a lawyer.

Once you file your answer, continue to monitor those files during the discovery period and that will give you some hints as to what to ask for in discovery. Since those cases are ahead of you, you might be able to ride their coat tails and get out from under.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Once you file your answer, continue to monitor those files during the discovery period and that will give you some hints as to what to ask for in discovery. Since those cases are ahead of you, you might be able to ride their coat tails and get out from under.

Except that discovery requests are generally not filed with the court in most states. They are simply served on the other party for response. The court only needs to see it if the parties end up in a dispute over discovery.

 

[quincy]

There are several cases that can be helpful to review.

 

[briana.askew]

Nevertheless, being sued in Superior Court means that you have to file a written answer to all the allegations and do it in the proper manner to preserve your defenses and move for dismissal.

If this plaintiff has filed 8 lawsuits in the past two months then chances are that one or more of them already contain written answers to the complaints, possibly written professionally by a defendant's attorney. I suggest you go to the courthouse and pull all those files and make copies of the answers. Following the same formats is probably the only way you'll get close to getting this right without a lawyer.

Once you file your answer, continue to monitor those files during the discovery period and that will give you some hints as to what to ask for in discovery. Since those cases are ahead of you, you might be able to ride their coat tails and get out from under.

Thank you! I didn't think about mimicking the format of the other cases responses! That's an excellent idea! Thank you.

 

[briana.askew]

Nevertheless, being sued in Superior Court means that you have to file a written answer to all the allegations and do it in the proper manner to preserve your defenses and move for dismissal.

If this plaintiff has filed 8 lawsuits in the past two months then chances are that one or more of them already contain written answers to the complaints, possibly written professionally by a defendant's attorney. I suggest you go to the courthouse and pull all those files and make copies of the answers. Following the same formats is probably the only way you'll get close to getting this right without a lawyer.

Once you file your answer, continue to monitor those files during the discovery period and that will give you some hints as to what to ask for in discovery. Since those cases are ahead of you, you might be able to ride their coat tails and get out from under.

Ok I looked at the other cases a little more and although they were filed within the last 2 months it looks like almost all of them were served around the same time as the one that was served to us (within the last 2 weeks) so none of them have responded yet, with the exception of 1...one of the places he is suing is Home Depot and they have filed a "Notice of Removal to Federal Court"....any thoughts on why they would do that?

 

[briana.askew]

Also, is there a way for me to see other cases that this lawyer has filed? I know how to search the plaintiffs name but not the lawyer. From what I understand if he files 10 or more of these same types of cases within 12 months there may be additional requirements that he needs to meet...he's only 2 away but I don't know how to search if there have been more.

 

[Taxing Matters]

one of the places he is suing is Home Depot and they have filed a "Notice of Removal to Federal Court"....any thoughts on why they would do that?

Yes, I have thoughts on why it might want to do that. The defendant wants to get the case out of the California courts, which tend to be a bit more plaintiff friendly, and into the federal courts which are not as plaintiff friendly. Federal court litigation also tends to be more complex and costly, which is likely to be more of a problem for the plaintiff than for a billion dollar corporation. Finally, it may be betting on an easier time for dismissal or summary judgment in the case, which would get rid of it easier.

 

[briana.askew]

Ok I have two new questions...

first: My business rents a space in a building with a common parking lot maintained by the building owner. The parking lot has not been renovated or upgraded since before 2008. Are they subject to litigation if they do not include the "$250 fine" warning signs as directed by the July 2008 changes to ADA requirements or are they exempt because they have not made renovations or changes to the parking lot since 2008?

second: What does this mean? "Plaintiff’s claim under the Unruh Act is barred to the extent that it interferes with Defendant’s compliance with laws and regulations that are equally applicable to all persons." Does this mean that to comply the defendent would be breaking some other law or regulation?

 

[briana.askew]

Ok, sorry, what does this mean also? "Plaintiff’s claims for damages in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s injury or injuries, if any, was/were caused by third parties acting outside the scope of agency, employment or control of Defendant."

Does this mean the complaints are barred because the injury was caused by a third party acting on their own accord?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Ok I have two new questions...

first: My business rents a space in a building with a common parking lot maintained by the building owner. The parking lot has not been renovated or upgraded since before 2008. Are they subject to litigation if they do not include the "$250 fine" warning signs as directed by the July 2008 changes to ADA requirements or are they exempt because they have not made renovations or changes to the parking lot since 2008?

second: What does this mean? "Plaintiff’s claim under the Unruh Act is barred to the extent that it interferes with Defendant’s compliance with laws and regulations that are equally applicable to all persons." Does this mean that to comply the defendent would be breaking some other law or regulation?

No. What it is saying is that the claim under the Unruh Act is not applicable to situations in which the defendant has complied with laws and regulations that are equally applicable to all persons. That comes from subsection (c) of the Unruh Act, which states: "This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, or to persons regardless of their genetic information." So if your claim would impose on the defendant a requirement different from a requirement of the law that applies to all persons and the defendant has complied with those other laws the Unruh Act wouldn't require that additional burden.

Ok, sorry, what does this mean also? "Plaintiff’s claims for damages in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s injury or injuries, if any, was/were caused by third parties acting outside the scope of agency, employment or control of Defendant."

Does this mean the complaints are barred because the injury was caused by a third party acting on their own accord?

It does not mean that the complaint is barred in its entirety. It is saying that your claims for damages are not valid to the extent that they were caused by a third party that was not under the control of the defendant.

 

[briana.askew]

No. What it is saying is that the claim under the Unruh Act is not applicable to situations in which the defendant has complied with laws and regulations that are equally applicable to all persons. That comes from subsection (c) of the Unruh Act, which states: "This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, or to persons regardless of their genetic information." So if your claim would impose on the defendant a requirement different from a requirement of the law that applies to all persons and the defendant has complied with those other laws the Unruh Act wouldn't require that additional burden.

Wow! I would have never interpreted that like that! Every time I think I am kind of starting to understand "lawyer speak" I am swiftly corrected :/ So I am the Defendent in this case, is there another way to say this in legal speak that would make more sense to me. I just don't understand how the claim "interfers with the Defendants compliance with laws and regulations" would it also make sense to say it "interfers with the Defendents right to the conditions or limits of the laws and regulations that are equally applicable to all persons."

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm trying to simplify the many years of education that it takes to be qualified to be a lawyer, I'm not. I just want to understand best I can becuase this is a response I am filing and if I go to court I want to be able to explain myself with confidence. Thank you so much for your help.

 

[quincy]

second: What does this mean? "Plaintiff’s claim under the Unruh Act is barred to the extent that it interferes with Defendant’s compliance with laws and regulations that are equally applicable to all persons." Does this mean that to comply the defendent would be breaking some other law or regulation?

The defendant must comply with all of the laws and regulations that apply to everyone and the Unruh claim cannot interfere with the defendant's ability to comply with these laws and regulations.