"Drive-By" ADA Lawsuits Shake Down Small Business Owners In California

The US of A has laws on the books known as American Disabilities Act (ADA) that mandates public businesses be accessible to people with disabilities. The law is well-intentioned and usually well implemented. However, this did not stop some vexatiously litigious people from abuising the court system and filing frivolous "drive-by" ADA lawsuits against small business owners who can't afford to fight the issue out in court, esp. during pandemic times. 

One such litigant is Potter Handy LLP, who also operates under the title "Center for Disability Access". They supposedly represented clients complained about businesses in both SF Bay Area and Greater LA Metro Area that allegedly violated ADA guidelines. Potter Handy LLP were filing up to 3 lawsuits A DAY in California's Federal District courts right up to April 2022, when they were sued by District Attorneys of both San Francisco and Los Angeles for violating California's Unfair Competition Act. 

While the civil lawsuit by the two district attorneys were dismissed in August 2022, Potter Handy LLP has mostly stopped filing lawsuits as several of the Federal judges handling the filed cases found that many of the presented facts do not add up. The pattern seems clear: there was no demand or notice of violation or request to correct before a lawsuit was filed, and the target is often (thought not always) a mom-and-pop shop (which does not have the resources of a corporate store, nor would they have lawyers on retainer to fight such).  The lawsuit claimed the plaintiff personally encountered "unlawful barriers" often something like "door handles", narrow paths, lack of ramps, inadequate handicapped parking markings, and so on. 

Most cases were settled for between 10K to 20K. 

According to a tally by Bay City News, 3142 cases (or more) in the last four years of ADA lawsuits filed in its own district handled by Potter Handy have been "resolved". And it's known that Potter Handy handled thousands of other cases in other California districts. 

Several Federal Judges have questioned whether the plaintiffs in the Potter Handy ADA cases have been truthful. One judge found that Brian Whittaker, one of Potter Handy's most prolific litigants, "traveled to Redwood City (California) for the purpose of finding business establishments to sue", not because he was visiting the area 2-3 times a month allegedly to relocate from LA. And Whittaker had sued HUNDREDS of businesses in the area. When questioned, he could not name any of the businesses despite suing and settling with hundreds of them. Note that one of the ADA claim requirements is intent to return to the business (and thus, need the barriers removed). 

Another judge, handling some of Whittaker's cases, pointed out that Whittaker took a one-day trip to San Francisco from LA, spend 2 hours moving about "to dine" or "to shop", returned home, and filed 34 lawsuits based on his experience on that one day trip to SF. This judge has also ordered the plaintiff in other Potter Handy cases before him to file additional affidavits, under penalty of perjury, for further details, and accused Potter Handy of filing "boilerplate" complaints. 

Potter Handy insists that it is protecting the rights of the clients it handled and called the civil suit brought by the district attorneys "a political stunt". 

I call it profiting off the misery of others.