California Justice Alliance, APC

In Hubbard v. Plaza Bonita, one of the largest filers of ADA/accessibility lawsuits in California faxed a number of settlement agreements which had first been created some weeks after the death of the client, and apparent signatory. The Magistrate Judge who first learned of this situation concluded that the attorney’s representations to the Court were not truthful, and ultimately imposed significant monetary sanctions, which were extensively opposed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to alter them.

The information from the foregoing case (among other things) led to a number of other significant results, even though no attorney from CJA was directly prosecuting the matter(s), or assisting in any role beyond at most, a mere witness. In 2016, California State Bar Court concluded that a one-year suspension of practice was warranted (affirmed by the California Supreme Court) for the attorney mentioned above, who remained ineligible to practice law through the date of this posting. In 2020, the State Bar Court concluded (among other things) that the son of the attorney (by then, one of the largest filers of ADA/accessibility lawsuits in California) made false representations of material fact to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to this and other matters, and that the son should also be suspended from the practice of law for one year; however, as of the date of this posting, the son has not become eligible to practice law in California.

Plaintiff’s counsel: Lynn Hubbard, III, and Scottlynn Hubbard, IV, of the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

In Gotti v. Pinnock, a former client of one of the largest filers of ADA/accessibility lawsuits in California contended that hundreds of lawsuits had been filed in her name relating to locations she’d never visited, or even wanted to go, and sought money damages for conditions (such as a claimed lack of Braille and wheelchair accessibility) which would never have been a problem for her, as she regularly walked without mobility aids and drove a car. While the trial court and appellate decisions in this case were all adverse to this attorney, he stipulated to disbarment in separate proceedings during the pendency of this case and left the country.

Plaintiff’s counsel: David W. Peters

Defense counsel: David C. Wakefield

One of the largest filers of ADA/accessibility lawsuits in the State of California contended in this case that the ADA required the wall on the push side of a restroom door to be of a particular length, and had advanced similar claims against countless defendants. If they’d been correct, countless structures around the United States would likely have required costly and immediate alterations. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the changes the attorney had sought in this and so many other cases were not required, but not before defendants in countless other cases entered into settlements.

Plaintiff’s counsel: Lynn Hubbard, III, and Scottlynn Hubbard, IV, of the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

In this case, one of the largest filers of ADA/accessibility lawsuits in the State of California contended that the 1991 ADAAG required that the empty space at the end of a dressing room bench had to be a particular length. Both the District Judge and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. If the Plaintiff’s attorney had been correct, countless retail dressing rooms around the country would have required costly and immediate alterations.

Plaintiff’s counsel: Lynn Hubbard, III, and Scottlynn Hubbard, IV, of the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

In this case, CJA represented the defendant and made a motion to dismiss on the basis that a recent comprehensive renovation resulted in no conditions in the public areas being subject to claims of noncompliance with the ADA. The plaintiff’s attorney represented that he needed to inspect the property and depose defendant’s expert, but ultimately never did those things, so the Court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. We believe plaintiff’s expert visited the property and concluded that little if any credible evidence in opposition to the motion could be produced.

Plaintiff’s counsel: Lynn Hubbard, III, and Scottlynn Hubbard, IV, of the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

In this lawsuit filed by one of the largest filers of ADA/accessibility lawsuits in the State of California– and one of their most prolific clients at the time– the court concluded after trial and considerable follow-up briefing that there had been no denial of access for the plaintiff, so entered judgment for the defendant.

Plaintiff’s counsel: Mark D. Potter, Russell C. Handy and Steve Wedel of Potter Handy, LLP, dba the Center for Disability Access

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

In this case, the Court imposed terminating and monetary sanctions based on the Plaintiff’s prolonged failure to provide appropriate responses to discovery.

Plaintiff’s counsel: Michael A. Taibi

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

In this case, the Court imposed terminating and monetary sanctions based on Plaintiff’s prolonged failure to provide appropriate responses to discovery.

Plaintiff’s counsel: Michael A. Taibi

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters