Articles Posted in Litigation

Published on: | by

Napa Valley and other Northern California hospitality industry companies should be prepared for a new type of ADA inquiry: pre-visit requests for detailed information about accessible features. These include reservation systems, guest services, dining areas, tasting rooms, tours, parking, accessible routes, and related accessibility disclosures. These inquiries arrive before the guest ever visits the property—a pattern consistent with the broader trend of “tester” litigation under the ADA.

One advocate receiving increasing attention among Northern California hotels, hospitality destinations, resorts, restaurants, and wineries is Jose Arocho, a self-described California-based ADA field investigator, ADA tester, and Prop 65/BPS consumer-safety investigator. His website, www.josearocho.com, identifies the investigations he is conducting involving some of the area’s most celebrated businesses, and reflects a focus on high-profile companies. Through his website, Arocho shares investigations, accessibility research, legal theories, and educational materials intended to help individuals identify and pursue accessibility-related claims.

Arocho sends what appear to be form inquiry letters to venues that he says he intends to visit, requesting detailed information about the accessible features of those properties. The letters reference intended visits for leisure travel and to perform ADA inspections and Prop 65 testing. This approach is noteworthy because it extends beyond the familiar ADA, Unruh Civil Rights Act, or Prop 65 demand letter. His public-facing investigations appear designed not only to document alleged accessibility issues, but also to educate potential plaintiffs about how accessibility claims can be identified, investigated, and pursued. He holds himself out as an independent expert. However, in subsequent communications, Arocho’s personal demands for money and remedial barrier removal emerge. More on the specifics of these demands to follow next week.   

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Neighborhood coffee shops and craft breweries have seen a noticeable increase in lawsuits recently. These are not large national chains with in-house legal teams. They are community-based businesses—often operating in older buildings—that may not know they are violating the law until they are served with a lawsuit.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, businesses that are open to the public must provide accessible paths of travel, seating, restrooms, service counters, and parking. Even technical violations—such as a bathroom mirror mounted an inch too high, a restroom door requiring too much force to open, improper slopes at an entry ramp, or exterior dining tables without adequate knee clearance—can trigger litigation.

Coffee shops and breweries are particularly vulnerable because of:

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Few states present greater ADA litigation risk to medical practices than California. In recent years, plaintiffs and ADA rights advocates have increasingly targeted medical facilities across the state, often filing high-volume lawsuits based on technical accessibility violations. Many practice owners are caught off guard, believing they are either compliant or too small to attract attention. In California, neither assumption is safe.

California is unique because ADA claims are almost always paired with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which allows plaintiffs to recover statutory damages—typically $4,000 per offense, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. This financial incentive has made California a hotspot for lawsuits against healthcare-related businesses of every size.

These claims are not limited to hospitals or large clinics. Targeted practices include physicians’ offices, internal and family medicine practices, dentists and orthodontists, oral surgeons, veterinarians and animal hospitals, physical therapy and chiropractic offices, mental health providers, psychologists and psychiatrists, urgent care centers, imaging and radiology facilities, dialysis centers, podiatrists, optometrists and ophthalmologists, audiologists, outpatient rehabilitation centers, fertility clinics, pain management practices, ambulatory surgery centers, addiction treatment facilities, medical spas and aesthetic salons, cosmetic and plastic surgery offices, acupuncture clinics, and specialty outpatient providers.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Federal and state enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) continues to evolve, creating significant compliance and litigation risk for public entities under Title II and businesses under Title III. While much of the attention around ADA compliance focuses on private lawsuits, government enforcement—particularly by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD)—remains a powerful and often underestimated source of exposure.

The ADA Framework: Title II vs. Title III

The ADA is a federal civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Two titles are most relevant to government enforcement actions.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

For businesses relying on email marketing, California’s regulatory environment is fraught with pitfalls. Unsolicited commercial emails, or spam, have been a focus of state enforcement for years, but a recent uptick in demand letters from firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys is escalating the risks. These pre-litigation notices, often penned by Scott J. Ferrell, Esq., allege violations of Business & Professions Code § 17529.5 through deceptive headers, subject lines, and domain uses. With strict liability and liquidated damages up to $1,000 per email—no intent or actual harm required—even modest campaigns can lead to multimillion-dollar exposure. If your business has received a Pacific Trial Attorneys anti-spam demand letter, prompt action is essential to resolve the claims before they are filed as a class lawsuit.

California’s Anti-Spam Law: A Strict Framework for Email Compliance

Enacted to curb deceptive online advertising, Business & Professions Code § 17529.5 prohibits unsolicited commercial emails containing false or misleading information, particularly those sent from or to people in California. Unlike the federal CAN-SPAM Act (which emphasizes opt-outs and is mostly enforced by agencies), California’s law grants private rights of action, enabling class action lawsuits with hefty penalties. Practices that create legal risk include:

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Los Angeles remains a focal point for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuits, with claims targeting both physical barriers and digital inaccessibility of websites and mobile apps. California sees the highest number of ADA lawsuits filed each year compared to other states. The greater Los Angeles area in particular sees a very high number of the state’s filings, driven by serial plaintiffs and firms seeking statutory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and attorneys’ fees under Unruh and the ADA.

Core Legal Framework: ADA Title III and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act

Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189) prohibits discrimination in “places of public accommodation,” defined broadly to include hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and other common businesses offering goods or services to the public. Even older properties must at least remove architectural barriers when “readily achievable” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)), i.e., without undue difficulty or expense relative to the benefit. Newer construction and renovations bring a higher standard of compliance. It is a common misconception to believe the older properties are grandfathered in and do not need to comply with the ADA. Violations lead to injunctive relief (court orders to update the property) and attorney fees for the plaintiff under the ADA. Courts apply a nexus test in California: purely online businesses with no nexus to physical retail locations are not subject to the ADA (Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., 81 Cal. App. 5th 1026 (2022)). However, other jurisdictions hold otherwise, so a purely online business could be sued and held liable in certain other states.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

In the world of online retail, strike-through pricing—displaying a higher “original” price crossed out next to a lower “sale” price—is a common marketing tactic to highlight discounts and drive sales. However, when not implemented correctly, this strategy can lead to legal claims from consumer protection law firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys, Tauler Smith LLP, and others. This article outlines practical strategies businesses can use to defend against similar lawsuits.

2025-05-14_15-15-15-1024x650
Understanding A Typical Lawsuit

A typical lawsuit or complaint letter centers on the plaintiff’s purchase of a given item advertised at a lower price with a higher strike-through reference price. The plaintiff will claim this reference price was not the “prevailing market price” within the three months prior to the advertisement, nor was the date when it prevailed clearly stated, rendering the discount misleading. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for a class of California consumers who purchased products at with inflated reference prices.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

California has long seen a high number of lawsuits filed by individuals with disabilities alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. Many have complained that these laws have been exploited by serial plaintiffs who file hundreds or thousands of lawsuits for minor technical violations, such as parking slopes being a few degrees too steep. Senate Bill 84 (SB-84), introduced on Jan. 17, 2025, by Senators Niello, Ashby, and Caballero, aims to strike a balance—preserving the rights of individuals with disabilities while offering small businesses a fair opportunity to address violations before facing lawsuits. At JMBM, we’re closely tracking this proposed legislation and its potential impact on our clients. Here’s what you need to know. Similar legislation has been proposed in the past, such as SB 585, but never passed. SB-84, however, is being proposed with some bipartisan support.

What SB-84 Proposes

SB-84 seeks to amend Section 55.56 of the California Civil Code, which governs statutory damages in accessibility claims. The bill introduces a critical procedural safeguard for businesses employing 50 or fewer individuals: a mandatory notice-and-cure period. Under the proposed law:

Continue ›

Published on: | by

“Strike-through pricing”—where retailers display a higher original price alongside a lower sale price—has been an effective marketing strategy for decades. However, in California, businesses must be cautious when using this strategy to ensure compliance with state laws. Misleading pricing claims can lead to expensive unanticipated legal repercussions, consumer mistrust, and costly class-action lawsuits.

The primary statute governing strike-through pricing in California is the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) found in California Business and Professions Code § 17501. This law is designed to prevent deceptive pricing practices by ensuring that any advertised former price genuinely reflects the prevailing market price within a recent timeframe.

Key Provisions of California Business and Professions Code § 17501

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Section 55.54 Protections

For years, California businesses and their organizations have been trying to rein in the plethora of ADA lawsuits, particularly those filed by a handful of plaintiffs and their law firms to curb litigation abuse. Those trying to curb ADA litigation abuse have made several apparently important inroads.

One such inroad designed to curb litigation abuse is California Civil Code Section 55.54 which was enacted to provide protective measures against serial ADA lawsuits filed by “High Frequency Litigants.” If the plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant, as defined by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.55(b), then a defendant may seek a 90-day stay of the litigation, and an Early Neutral Evaluation. A high-frequency litigant is defined by a plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging construction-related accessibility violations within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. The process is incredibly simple, and requires the filing of a single form, checking off a few boxes. The most important rule is that the Section 55.54 application must be filed before or concurrently with the Answer, or responsive pleading, to the Complaint.

The goal of the Early Neutral Evaluation, and the 90-day stay, is for parties to reach early settlement. The Court will set forth the necessary procedures, documents, and goals for the early neutral evaluation. The Court may also require parties to conduct a joint inspection of the property in question.

Continue ›