PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. POTTER HANDY LLP ET AL

On April 11, 2022, The People of The State Of California (“Plaintiff”), represented by Boudin. Chesa of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and Geoge Gascon of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, filed a contract lawsuit against Potter Handy LLP, Mark Potter, Russell Handy, Dennis Price, Amanda Lockhart Seabock and Ors (collectively, Defendants”), seeking injunctive relief, the restoration of benefits, civil penalties and the costs of litigation for the Defendants’ alleged unlawfully circumvention of the California Legislature’s procedural reforms on abusive Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) disabilities litigation. This case was filed in the Civic Center Courthouse in the San Francisco County Superior Court with Judge Samuel K. Feng presiding.

In their complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “The law firm Potter Handy LLP, dba ‘Center for Disability Access’ is unlawfully circumventing the California Legislature’s procedural reforms on abusive Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) disabilities litigation. The firm does so by filing thousands of boilerplate, cut-and-paste federal-court lawsuits that falsely assert its clients have standing under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’).” 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “After the business settles, the Serial Filer fails to return to the business, and the firm rarely if ever monitors the business’s compliance with the ADA and Unruh Act, despite that being the alleged basis for the lawsuit. Instead, Potter Handy and the Serial Filer simply move on to other targets, filing an ever-increasing number of new lawsuits in order to keep the firm’s revenues flowing [...] This means that a disabled plaintiff filing a lawsuit in California may bring both a federal ADA claim for injunctive relief and a state law Unruh Act claim for damages, all for the same alleged set of facts—an “ADA/Unruh” suit.”

The Plaintiff then alleged that, “To help businesses comply with the laws and protect the rights of disabled persons while avoiding unnecessary litigation, the Legislature created the California Commission on Disability Access and set up a process by which businesses could voluntarily hire an inspector through the Certified Access Specialist program (“CASp”).”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Potter Handy has long been alleged to engage in fraud. Notably, in 2005, a former Potter Handy client named Phillip DiPrima asked to dismiss cases that Potter Handy had filed on his behalf, submitting a sworn declaration accusing Defendants Mark Potter and Russell Handy of multiple fraudulent acts. Relevant here, Mr. DiPrima accused Defendants Potter and Handy of (1) alleging ADA violations in complaints filed in Mr. DiPrima’s name that Mr. DiPrima did not experience and had not told Potter Handy he experienced; and (2) entering into settlements on  Mr. DiPrima’s behalf without obtaining commitments to fix the alleged ADA violations, solely to maximize their own compensation.”

The Plaintiff has listed only one claim for relief, for the alleged violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., against all Defendants. 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested that the Court preliminarily and permanently restrain their successors and the assigns of all or substantially all their assets and enjoin them from engaging in any acts of unfair competition; that Defendants be ordered to restore to every person in interest all money and property which was acquired by Defendants through their unlawful conduct; that Defendants are ordered to pay cumulative civil penalties of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) and award to the Plaintiffs their costs of suit and any other such relief that the Court deems just and proper. 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.