96 ADA Lawsuits Filed by Scott Johnson in Two Weeks
April 1, 2021, | ADA, Scott Johnson A
By Catherine M. Corfee, Esq (Corfee Stone Law Corp) (916) 487-5441 – [email protected] Serving Northern and Southern California
Between March 15, 2021, and March 30, 2021, Corfee Stone Law Corporation searched and found 96 ADA lawsuits filed by disabled plaintiff Scott Johnson. When Scott Johnson’s four former employees sued Scott Johnson for sexual harassment, Ms. Corfee represented his prior employees. She saw his cheat sheets and scams for doing drive-bys to sue businesses for alleged ADA barriers to him. Practicing both ADA and Employment Law is Ms. Corfee’s focus, including Fair Housing Law.
Where are the suits filed?
Scott Johnson sues in both the Northern and Eastern District Federal Courts. The Northern District covers cases from Contra Costa, Napa, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, etc. The Eastern 96 ADA Lawsuits Filed by Scott Johnson in Two Weeks 2 District includes counties such as Alpine, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Sacramento, Merced, Placer County, and so forth.
Who is Being Sued?
Scott Johnson sues gas stations, restaurants (older ones), Pizza places, Donut Shops, Garden Shops, Rental Car facilities, Grocery stores, and much more. He one time sued a Kiss N Tell even though owners never saw him and/or heard from him about suffering any injuries prior to filing his lawsuit. I had a psychic contact me once about one of his ADA lawsuits. Scott Johnson lives in Carmichael, California, which is miles away from the public accommodations sued in the Bay Area, Fresno, Campbell, and Gilroy. Though he claims he needs ADA access to return, he almost never does, according to the clients of Ms. Corfee.
What to do to avoid a Scott Johnson Lawsuit?
There are California defenses to damages claimed by Scott Johnson. Under the California Unruh Act, Scott Johnson is entitled to $4000 per visit. He must, however, mitigate his damages and not return unreasonably without notifying the landlord and/or the tenant about his alleged injuries from the purported barriers. His “injuries” are an alleged denial of full and equal access per the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act 2010 Standards, or the 1991 Standards, and Title 24 of the California Building Code. The measurements and codes identify if a barrier exists, where it should be an “actual” barrier. The Court’s however, is treating the codes as a strict liability when it is not.
For small businesses, if one retains a CASp to inspect its facility for barriers prior to any lawsuit filing and begins and does remove them within 120 of the CASp inspection (even if an ADA lawsuit is filed subsequently), the business will not likely incur liability. If a permit is required, law 3 expands the time to 180 days for completion. There are other defenses; however, the 120-day pre-lawsuit CASp inspection and removal is the most favorable.
At Corfee Stone, Ms. Corfee works with clients providing preventative advice, referring them to good and “effective” CASps, and identifying solutions and resources. Though pavers and construction workers claim they know the ADA, only the ADA attorneys who litigate the matters are aware of how Plaintiff’s attorneys “manufacture” grey areas to dispute the interpretation of the codes. The longer they can protract litigation, the more attorneys’ fees and costs they can claim in settlement on by a motion.
Please contact Ms. Catherine M. Corfee for legal advice. This article is not intended to provide express and implied legal advice. An attorney must be relied on. The facts and laws of each Case are different.
Share this post: