SUED BY DISABLED PLAINTIFF JESUS TORRES?
I am wondering if the Contra Costa Superior Court should have a welcoming party for disabled Plaintiff Jesus Torres who filed at least 6 ADA/Unruh Act lawsuits from November 15, to November 28, 2023. Torres alleges he is visually impaired. He does not indicate whether he has no vision. The cases he filed and the dates of filing are:
· 11-15-23 Torres v Joroda Inc
· 11-17-23 Torres v. Walnut Creek East Ocean Inc.
· 11-20-23 Torres v. LB Jack London LP;
· 11-20-23 Torres v. La Meriterranee I. Inc.,
· 11-28-23 Torres v. VSI Inc.
· 11-28-23 Torres v. Tarla Grill Inc.
All six ADA/Unruh lawsuits are nearly identical with the similar boilerplate language, lengthy statements of the law, and very few actual facts as to how Torres could not use the website to then visit the physical location of the business. Why did he go to the website, how did he even learn of the business and what did he want? When reading the complains, one has no idea what the business does for its customers.
The California Unruh Act does not protect disabled advocates who file ADA/Unruh Act lawsuits solely to seek ADA compliance, like the federal law allows. Rather, the disabled person must intend to use the goods and/or services like a bonafide patron. See White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 1019 (2019). Jesus Torres claims he is a resident of Contra Costa, and uses screen reading software known a JAWS. He admits that he is a civil rights advocate and has a dual purpose of: (1) availing himself of the goods and services (which we have no clue about) and (2) filing lawsuits to compel ADA website compliance for the visually impaired. Torres alleges that he should be “praised” not “vilified” for his advocacy work of filing surprise lawsuits against California businesses.
Presumably, Torres does not warn them, educate them, make suggestions, and/or talk to the businesses before he hails them into court. We need people like him to educate businesses about ADA accessible computer software and how it is used by the sight and hearing impaired. Curiously, omitted from each of Torres’ complaints is information about any other advocacy work that he does, except to sue. Since litigation is so expensive, especially a jury trial, most businesses make their websites accessible, and pay ransom to settle early on. There is a whole industry trying to sell ADA website access. Some hosts do not even have platforms that are compatible with some of the website plug-ins, so the entire website may have to be redesigned. I have found inexpensive methods; however, you need a flexible website host for the plug-ins to work. For example, WordPress, and Wix seem to be easier than other hosts. Change in the digital world is slow.
Notably absent from Torre’s complaints are facts demonstrating his true intent to use the goods and services because he does not specify such. He does not disclose what the business does, and what good and/or services he intended to use. One gets the feeling that he does not know anything about the business that he sued – – which begs the question of how then could he have intended to use and enjoy what they offered.
Catherine M. Corfee Esq. has been litigating and practicing ADA laws since 1995, worked for two prior U.S. Magistrate Judges in the Federal Eastern District of California and has her own private practice. 916-487-5441or 916-812-7322. Corfee Stone Law Corp. Services Northern and Southern California. Zoom and other media options have replaced the need to appear at court thus saving clients money.
Nothing in this blog/article is intended to provide any legal advice and must not be relied upon for such.