Disabled Carmen John Perri files Too Many ADA Lawsuits
By Catherine M. Corfee,
Disabled plaintiff Carmen John Perri (“Perri”) is an alleged disabled plaintiff who has retained the law firm of Manning to sue businesses repeatedly for alleged denial of access. He demands at least a minimum of $4000 for himself, plus attorneys’ fees and costs to is counsel pursuant to the California Unruh Act. He filed too many on 12-18-23 during the holidays, which is hard enough in this economy. More than one ADA/Unruh Act lawsuit is enough if it is legitimate.
Disabled Carmen John Perri alleges the same thing in his ADA access lawsuits:
“Plaintiff s musculoskeletal and neurological systems are impaired. These impairments result in weakness, fatigue, pain, and loss of strength in his arms, hands, and legs. He has also developed permanent nerve damage that has caused increased pain and limits his ability function and limits his mobility, especially for any extended period of time. He is substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including but not limited to: walking, standing, ambulating, and/or sitting. Plaintiff’s circulatory and cardiovascular systems are impaired. Specifically, Plaintiff has been diagnosed with Atrial Fibrillation. This substantially limits his ability to walk, stand, ambulate, breath, sit, or otherwise function. As a result of his impairments, he is subject to falls, unsteady on his feet, cannot walk for any significant distance without having to periodically rest, and often relies upon mobility devices to ambulate including a cane, walker, or wheelchair.
In his complaint, Plaintiff Perri admits that he is, “. . . is a high-frequency litigant. During the 12 months prior to the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has filed over 10 complaints alleging a construction related accessibility claim.” Perri does not alleged that he is paraplegic or a quadriplegic. We do not know if he can stand and walk, which matters with respect to the ADA violations that he alleges. For example, in one action, he complained that the “point of sale machine was too high.” If in fact he can stand, then this is not a barrier. In another action, he alleged that the defendant failed to cover the sink pipes under the bathroom sink. That allegation is a fallacy as it has been proven by experts that the hot water going through the pipes never exceed “warm” temperatures per OSHA, which is not warmer than the water on your hands as it generally cools down when going through the drain. It seems that Plaintiff Carmen John Perri is using lawsuits to make money, not intending to use the goods and services like a bona fide patron.
Plaintiff Perri alleges a violation of the California Unruh Act based on ADA violations. In California, the Supreme Court interpreted the Unruh Act and held that a disabled plaintiff is protected from arbitrary discrimination if the person “intends” to use the goods and services at the physical location, like a bonafide patron. The California legislature made several changes to its access laws to curb the high volume of lawsuits being filed against small California businesses. There are special procedural requirements aimed at limiting suits by high-frequency litigants. California protects a customer right to access a business without being discriminated against based on one’s disability, race, gender, etc. It set forth special procedural requirements aimed at limiting suits by high-frequency litigants. Despite California’s noble efforts to curb the abuses, they continue.
* * *
Catherine M. Corfee Esq. provides ADA advice to potentially prevent a lawsuit, and she defends businesses in all California Courts. Ms. Corfee worked for two U.S. Federal Magistrate Judges and has been practicing ADA litigation since approximately 1995. www.corfeestonelaw.com
This article/blog is not intended to provide express or implied advice and should not be relied upon for such.