BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 1163 (Walters)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: May 8, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: Yes
NR
SUBJECT
Special Access: Liability
DESCRIPTION
This bill would impose pre-litigation procedural requirements
upon the filing of any claim under the state's civil rights and
equal access to public or housing accommodation laws, including
claims of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) in state-owned facilities. Specifically, this bill would
require:
a specified and highly detailed 30-day notice of violation
served by personal service or certified mail on the property
owner or other responsible party, with a possible 120-day
additional waiting period during which the property owner or
other responsible party may bring the property into compliance
with disability access laws;
if correction of the violation does not occur by the end of
the additional 120 days and the owner fails to provide a
satisfactory explanation, the claimant would be permitted to
file the claim; and
if correction of the violation does occur, the aggrieved party
and all future aggrieved parties would be prohibited from
receiving any award of damages, other than special damages, as
defined, or any award of attorney's fees, in any claim based
on the same or similar facts.
The bill contains legislative findings and declarations
regarding the abuse of special access laws through vexatious
litigation, and the intent of the Legislature to restrict the
filing of special access lawsuits under California law by
requiring notice to the owners and providing them with the
(more)
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 2 of ?
opportunity to cure the violations. This bill would include an
urgency clause, and go into effect immediately.
BACKGROUND
Since 1969, persons with disabilities have enjoyed protection
under Civil Code
Sections 54 and 54.1, which entitle individuals with
disabilities and medical conditions to full and free access to
and use of roadways, sidewalks, buildings and facilities open to
the public, hospitals and medical facilities, and housing. After
Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in
1990, the state made a violation of the ADA also a violation of
Section 54 or 54.1. The state protections provided to disabled
persons are comparatively higher than those provided under the
ADA and are independent of the ADA.
A violation of Section 54 or Section 54.1 makes a person liable
for actual damages plus a maximum of three times the actual
damages (but not less than $1,000), plus attorney's fees and
costs. In a private right of action under the ADA, a plaintiff
may obtain injunctive relief and attorney's fees, while an
action by the U.S. Attorney may bring equitable relief, monetary
damages on behalf of the aggrieved party, and a civil penalty of
up to $100,000.
Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, all persons, regardless of
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
disability or medical condition, are entitled to the full and
equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
services in all business establishments of every kind
whatsoever. (Civil Code Section 51.) A violation of the ADA
also constitutes a violation of Section 51. A violation of this
section subjects a person to actual damages incurred by an
injured party, plus treble actual damages but not less than
$4,000, and any attorney's fees as the court may determine to be
proper. (Civil Code Section 52.)
SB 262 (Kuehl, Chapter 872, Statutes of 2003) established in the
Division of the State Architect a voluntary "access specialist
certification program" in order to assist business and property
owners to comply with ADA and state access laws. The bill also
authorized an enforcement action with civil penalties for
noncompliance with ADA and state access laws, after notification
of the business owner or operator by a government agency. The
authority to institute a civil action was extended to county
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 3 of ?
counsels (in addition to the Attorney General, district
attorney, and city attorney).
In 2003 and 2005, several bills were introduced after multiple
lawsuits were filed in state court by a few plaintiffs and
attorneys against business owners and operators for apparently
technical violations of the state's access or ADA regulations.
(SB 69 (Oller, 2003), AB 209 (Leslie, 2003), AB 20 (Leslie,
2005), and SB 855 (Poochigian, 2005).) Three of those bills
would have required pre-litigation procedures for a plaintiff to
undertake prior to the filing of a complaint, including notice
to the owner of the property or business of the alleged
violations and would have provided a specified time period for
the owner or business to cure the violations. One bill (AB 20)
would have precluded an action for damages for a de minimus
violation, allowing only injunctive relief and attorney's fees.
All of those bills failed passage in the Judiciary Committees of
their respective houses.
In 2008, three bills were introduced relating to disability
access. (AB 2533 (Keene, 2008), SB 1766 (McClintock, 2008), and
SB 1608 (Corbett, Harman, Steinberg, Runner and Calderon,
Chapter 549, Statutes of 2008).) AB 2533 would have required a
person alleging violations of the full and equal access laws to
first deliver a notice to the responsible party, specifying the
physical conditions complained of, and would have required that
entity to make a good faith effort to remedy the condition. No
person could file an action unless the person to whom the notice
was given failed, within 30 days of receipt of the notice, to
commence a good faith effort to remedy the condition complained
of, or the person allowed unreasonable delays in remedying the
condition. AB 2533 failed passage in the Assembly Committee on
Judiciary. SB 1766 would have taken a similar approach by
imposing a duty on a person with a disability to first notify by
certified mail the owner or manager of the housing or public
accommodation in violation of the full and equal access laws and
also impose a duty on the owner or manager to remedy the
condition complained of within six months. This bill failed
passage in this Committee.
Alternatively, SB 1608, which took effect January 1, 2009, did
not create any pre-litigation hurdles for a person with a
disability but instead, among other things, provided for an
early evaluation of a filed complaint if the defendant is a
qualified defendant who had the identified place of public
accommodation inspected and determined to meet applicable
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 4 of ?
physical access standards by a state Certified Access Specialist
prior to the filing of the complaint.
This bill is identical to SB 783 (Dutton, 2011) which failed
passage in this Committee last year. This bill would establish
notice requirements for an aggrieved party to follow before he
or she can bring a disability access suit and give the business
owner a 120-day time period to remedy the violation. If the
property owner cures the violation, the aggrieved party cannot
receive any damages or attorney's fees, except for special
damages.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law , under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), provides that no individual shall be discriminated
against on the basis of disability in the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or leases to, or
operates a place of public accommodation. (42 U.S.C. Sec.
12182.)
Existing law provides that individuals with disabilities or
medical conditions have the same right as the general public to
the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks,
walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including
hospitals, clinics and physicians' offices, public facilities
and other public places. It also provides that a violation of
an individual's rights under the ADA constitutes a violation of
state law. (Civ. Code Sec. 54.)
Existing law provides that individuals with disabilities shall
be entitled to full and equal access to public accommodations,
subject only to the conditions and limitations established by
law, state, or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all
persons. It further provides that individuals with disabilities
shall be entitled to full and equal access to all housing
accommodations offered for rent or lease, subject to conditions
and limitations established by law. (Civ. Code Sec. 54.1.)
Existing law provides that a violation of the ADA also
constitutes a violation of Section 54.1. A violation of Section
54.1 subjects a person to actual damages, plus treble actual
damages but not less than $1,000, and attorney's fees as the
court deems proper. (Civ. Code Sec. 55.)
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 5 of ?
Existing law , the Unruh Civil Rights Act, declares that all
persons, regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability or medical condition, are entitled
to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges, or services in all business establishments of every
kind whatsoever. A violation of the ADA also constitutes a
violation of Unruh. A violation of this section subjects a
person to actual damages incurred by an injured party, treble
actual damages but not less than $4,000, and any attorney's fees
as the court may determine to be proper. (Civ. Code Sec. 51 et
seq.)
Existing law established the California Commission on Disability
Access (CCDA), an independent state agency composed of 19
members, with the general responsibility for monitoring
disability access compliance in California, and making
recommendations to the Legislature for necessary changes in
order to facilitate implementation of state and federal laws on
disability access. (Gov. Code Sec. 8299 et seq.)
Existing law requires an attorney, when serving a demand for
money letter or a complaint on a defendant, include a written
advisory to the defendant of the defendant's rights and
obligations, including the right of a qualified defendant to
request a stay and an early evaluation conference regarding the
allegations in the complaint. This written advisory is required
from an attorney only and is not required from a pro per
plaintiff. (Civ. Code Sec. 55.3.)
Existing law defines terms for a disability access action,
specifically, existing law:
defines a qualified defendant as a defendant in an action that
includes an accessibility claim as to a place of public
accommodation that has been inspected by a certified access
specialist (CASp) and determined to meet applicable
construction-related accessibility standards or pending
determination by a CASp;
defines a certified access specialist whose inspection report
would be the basis for a defendant to qualify for the early
evaluation conference;
defines the construction-related accessibility standard that a
CASp would use to inspect and prepare a report on the place of
public accommodation; and
enumerates the duties of the CASp with respect to the
inspection, the corrections that may need to be made to the
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 6 of ?
site, written inspection report, and the statement of
compliance, including the issuance, upon completion of the
inspection and a determination that the site meets applicable
construction-related accessibility standards, of a specified,
watermarked, and sequentially numbered disability access
certificate that may be displayed at the site. (Civ. Code
Sec. 55.52.)
Existing law provides that if a CASp determines that a site
meets all applicable construction-related accessibility claims
the CASp must provide a written inspection report to the
requesting party that includes specified information. If the
CASp determines that corrections are needed to the site in order
for it to meet all applicable construction-related accessibility
standards, the CASp must provide a written inspection report to
the requesting party that identifies the needed corrections and
a schedule for completion. Existing law provides when a state
and federal standard are in conflict, the state provision shall
apply unless the federal provision is more protective of
accessibility rights. (Civ. Code Sec. 55.53.)
Existing law requires every CASp who completes an inspection of
a site to provide the owner or tenant with a disability access
inspection certificate if the site either meets applicable
construction-related accessibility standard or is a CASp
determination pending site. Existing law permits the building
owner or tenant to post the certificate on the premises unless,
after the date of inspection, the inspected site has been
modified or construction has commenced to modify the inspected
site in a way that may impact compliance with
construction-related accessibility standards. (Civ. Code Sec.
55.53.)
Existing law outlines the specific process to be followed when
filing a disability access claim:
specifies the contents of the request and includes a link to
the Judicial Council of California's Web site to access the
appropriate court forms;
provides that a qualified defendant may file an application
requesting an early evaluation conference (EEC) after the
defendant is served with the summons and complaint within 30
days of receiving the summons and complaint;
grants qualified defendants a 90-day stay of the proceedings
with respect to the construction-related accessibility claims,
unless the plaintiff has obtained temporary injunctive relief;
requires a mandatory EEC to be scheduled no later than 50 days
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 7 of ?
after issuance of the order but no earlier than 21 days after
the request is filed;
directs the parties to appear in person at the time set for
the conference;
directs the defendant to file with the court and serve on the
plaintiff a copy of any relevant CASp inspection report at
least 15 days prior to the date of the EEC;
directs the plaintiff to file with the court and serve on the
defendant at least 15 days prior to the date of the EEC a
statement containing, to the extent reasonably known, an
itemized list of the alleged violations, the amount of damages
claimed, the amount of attorney's fees and costs claimed, and
any demand for settlement of the case in its entirety;
specifies that the court shall lift the stay when defendant
has failed to file and serve the CASp inspection report when
required and also did not produce the report at the EEC,
unless good cause for the failure is shown;
specifies that the court may lift the stay at the conclusion
of the EEC upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff;
specifies the court's authority to schedule additional
conferences or to extend the stay for no more than an
additional 90 days, upon a showing of good cause; and
specifies the determinations the court would make at the EEC.
(Civ. Code Sec. 55.54.)
Existing law provides that the stay and early evaluation
conference shall not be deemed to make any inspection report or
opinion of a CASp binding on the court or to abrogate the
court's authority to make appropriate findings of fact and law.
(Civ. Code Sec. 55.54.)
Existing law provides that the stay and early evaluation
conference shall not be construed to invalidate or limit any
California construction-related accessibility standard that
provides greater or equal protection for the rights of persons
with disabilities than is afforded by the ADA and the federal
regulations adopted pursuant to that act. (Civ. Code Sec.
55.54.)
Existing law provides that notwithstanding the requirement that
offers of compromise are privileged and protected under Evidence
Code Section 1152, the court may consider, along with other
relevant information, settlement offers made and rejected by the
parties, in determining an award of reasonable attorney's fees
and recoverable costs in any construction-related accessibility
claim. (Civ. Code Sec. 55.55.)
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 8 of ?
Existing law provides that statutory damages may be recovered in
a construction-related accessibility claim only if a violation
or violations of one or more construction-related accessibility
standards denied the plaintiff full and equal access to the
place of public accommodation on a particular occasion.
Existing law specifies that a plaintiff is denied full and equal
access only if he or she personally encountered the violation on
a particular occasion or was deterred from accessing the public
accommodation on a particular occasion. (Civ. Code Sec. 55.56.)
This bill would impose pre-litigation procedural requirements
upon the filing of any claim under the state's civil rights and
equal access to public or housing accommodation laws, and limit
an aggrieved party's right to damages and attorney's fees, as
specified.
This bill would require the aggrieved party, prior to the filing
of any claim, to serve a notice by personal service or certified
mail on the owner of the property or other responsible person,
stating:
This letter is to inform you that the property located at
(address of property), for which you are the property owner,
agent, or other responsible party, may be in violation of
federal and/or state special access laws pursuant to
(expressly cite the federal and/or California statute of which
the property is believed to be in violation) and caused harm
to (list the name of the alleged aggrieved party).
Specifically, the possible violation(s) has/have been
identified as follows: (Notice must identify the specific
facts that constitute the alleged violation, including the
date on which the alleged violation occurred and
identification of the location of the alleged violation with
sufficient detail, so that the location can be identified by
the property owner, agent, or other responsible party).
Under Section 55.4 of the California Civil Code, you have 30
days to respond to this notice by certified mail or personal
service. Your response must be addressed to (give address
where personal service may be received or certified mail may
be sent). California law allows you to respond in one of three
ways:
(1)You may expressly state that improvements will be made
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 9 of ?
to bring the premises into compliance with applicable
special access laws. If you respond in this fashion, you
have a maximum of 120 days to make these improvements or
repairs. The 120-day period shall begin on the date your
response to this notice is received at the address given
above. If the improvements or repairs necessary to bring
the property into compliance with federal and state
special access laws are not completed in 120 days, a
lawsuit may be brought against you.
(2)You may challenge the validity of the alleged
violations. If you respond in this fashion, a lawsuit may
be brought against you immediately.
(3)If the violations listed above are the same or similar
to previous violations that you believe have been
corrected, you may respond by stating that the necessary
repairs have been made to bring the property into
compliance with federal and state special access laws.
You must also attach evidence that verifies those
improvements.
If you have any questions about this notice or your rights
under federal or California law, please contact your legal
counsel."
This bill would grant the property owner or responsible party 30
days from the date of the notice to respond, by personal service
or certified mail, in one of three ways detailed in the notice
above.
This bill would provide that if the violation is corrected
within the 120-day period, an award of damages would be
prohibited, except for "special damages," as defined, and an
award of attorney's fees, to the current or future alleged
aggrieved parties for any claim arising out of the same facts
that served as the basis for the violation.
This bill would provide that if the violation is not corrected
within the 120 day period and the owner or responsible party
fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, the aggrieved party
may file a claim.
This bill would deem as a nonadmission of guilt, statements made
by the owner or responsible party in the response to the notice
of violation, expressly stating that the property would be
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 10 of ?
brought into compliance, and make such statements inadmissible
in any future claim based on the same facts.
This bill would require the use of this procedure in all claims
for damages or fees, other than those praying for special
damages arising out of an injury in fact because of a denial of
full and equal access under the state's access laws.
This bill would require a court or jury to consider, in making a
determination of the amount of damages awarded to a successful
plaintiff, previous or pending actual damage awards received or
prayed for by the plaintiff for the same or similar injury.
This bill would require the use of this procedure in all claims
based on ADA violations in state-owned facilities.
This bill would declare legislative intent to institute programs
to educate business property owners and local municipalities
about the accessibility requirements of federal and state
special access laws.
This bill contains legislative findings and declarations.
This bill would include an urgency clause and would go into
effect immediately.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
In support of this bill, the author writes:
SB 1163 seeks to solve this problem of abuse against small
businesses and the lack of accessibility for the disabled
community by inserting a notice and comply provision into the
Civil Code, meaning that before filing a claim under the
state's Unruh Civil Rights code (including claims of
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in
state-owned facilities), the prosecuting party would notify
the business of the violation, and they would have a 120 day
window to fix the violation before being sued.
Further, the National Federation of Independent Business writes:
Frivolous lawsuits have become a growing problem and create a
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 11 of ?
negative climate for California small businesses. While some
claims may prove legitimate, a large percentage is completely
without merit. However, individuals and entities that are
sued still have to defend themselves, and this defense is
often costly to both businesses and consumers. Small
businesses, usually without a legal or administrative
department or the infrastructure to defend themselves, are
usually an easy target for plaintiffs' attorneys who have
converted this into a cottage industry of sorts over the
years.
2. This bill would create unprecedented pre-litigation procedural
hurdles for disabled persons that would undermine enforcement
of the ADA and California's civil rights and equal access laws
Under existing law, if an individual's civil rights or liberties
are violated, they have a right to seek recourse in a court of
law by filing a complaint. While there are situations where a
plaintiff is required to take some preliminary steps before
commencing an action or proceeding, those situations relate to
contract and quasi-contract actions, beneficiary-trustee
lawsuits against third parties, and to cases of professional
malpractice by architects, engineers, land surveyors and common
interest development contractors (Witkin, California Procedure
4th Ed., Vol. 3, 198 et seq.) This bill would create an
unprecedented pre-litigation hurdle for persons with
disabilities enforcing their civil rights which would result in
an additional inequity since no other protected classes of
persons are subject to such procedural hurdles.
Specifically, this bill would require "an alleged aggrieved
party" to serve notice, by personal service or certified mail,
to the property owner or responsible party. This bill contains
the specific language that the notice must include as well as
the specific violations being alleged, the person or persons who
suffered an injury as a result of the violations, and the
options that are available to the property owner or responsible
party. The property owner would then have 30 days to respond to
the notice. During that time, the aggrieved claimant would not
be able to proceed any further.
It can be presumed that since the information contained in the
notice must be specific to each and every violation, including
citations of any state or federal statute, this could result in
most claimants needing to seek the assistance of an attorney.
However, this bill would also provide that if a disabled person
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 12 of ?
does file a complaint, they would be prohibited from recovering
attorney's fees, as discussed below. As a result, this
requirement could act as a financial deterrent to disabled
persons pursuing their claim for a violation of their civil
rights to equal access.
Existing law provides business owners with the minimum standards
for compliance with state and federal disability access
standards. This bill would allow property owners to ignore the
law until a disabled person makes a complaint. During that time
the disabled person who suffered as a result of the property
owner's actions, could not do anything while the property owner
is not only given 30 days to respond, but is also given numerous
options to decide how he or she wants to respond. Under this
bill, if the property owner "chooses" to comply with the law,
they have another 120 days to do so.
3. This bill would give violators of disability access laws an
unprecedented right to cure violations
This bill would give violators of state and federal disability
access laws the right to cure a violation before a party may
file a complaint. That right to cure is unprecedented and not
imposed on any other protected class attempting to enforce their
civil rights.
Upon receiving notice from the claimant that the property may be
in violation of disability access laws, the property owner has
30 days to respond. In that response, the property owner has
three options.
First, if the alleged violations have been corrected, the
property owner or responsible party may state so in a response,
and attach evidence of the corrective action taken. This of
course, is done outside of any court proceeding and is not
subject to any oversight.
Second, the property owner or responsible party may challenge
the validity of the alleged violations, in which case the
claimant may file a claim, subject to any applicable statute of
limitation, at any time after the claimant has received the
response to the notice from the responsible party. The language
of this provision of SB 1163 raises a few concerns. It is
unclear what the phrase "challenge the validity of the alleged
violation" means. This begs the question as to whether a one
sentence response, "I challenge the validity of your claims"
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 13 of ?
would suffice. There is also an issue with the 30-day period
that the property owner has to respond to the claimant's
notification. There could be circumstances wherein the property
owner or responsible party does not respond until the 30th day
from the date of the notice, and the statute of limitation runs
on the 30th day.
Third, the property owner may expressly agree to take corrective
action, in which case the disabled person would have to wait
another 120 days to see if the corrective actions were made or
not. Also, this response may not be considered an admission of
guilt and would be inadmissible in a future claim filed against
the property owner, agent or responsible party.
This bill would also require the court or jury to consider
previous or pending actual damage awards to a successful
plaintiff or requested in other pending lawsuits, when making a
determination of the amount of damages to award to a plaintiff.
This same provision was contained in SB 783. Concerning that
bill, the Consumer Attorneys of California noted that "it
appears unprecedented to have this type of provision in law and
it would prove to have a chilling effect on legitimate cases.
Further, existing law already contains protections against
vexatious litigants so this provision is unnecessary."
Considering that a previous express promise by the defendant to
bring the property into compliance (which presumably was not
fulfilled) would be prohibited from being admitted into
evidence, it is arguably unfair that the court is required to
consider the plaintiff's past history of filing these lawsuits.
4. Award of attorney's fees, costs and treble damages would be
eliminated
Under existing law, in addition to actual damages, a court may
award a successful plaintiff his or her attorney's fees and
costs and treble damages in an amount not less than $1,000 in an
action for specific civil rights violations perpetrated against
disabled persons.
This bill would prohibit a plaintiff from recovering anything
but "special damages" in these actions. "Special damages" are
challenging to prove and are generally defined as an "actual,
but not the necessary, result of the injury complained of, and
which in fact follow as a natural and proximate consequence in
the particular case, this is by reason of special circumstance
and conditions."
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 14 of ?
Actual damages in actions involving denial of full and equal
access to disabled persons are rarely present and are very
difficult to ascertain except in situations involving, for
example, hospitals and clinics, and the plaintiff is in need of
medical attention. Thus, the law provides for the minimum of
$1,000 in treble damages so that businesses would be deterred
from ignoring the rights of access by these persons to their
establishments. In addition, an award of attorney's fees and
costs is provided under existing law because actual damages are
often minor and are insufficient to cover the costs of
litigation.
While the proponents of this bill may seek to curb predatory
lawsuits designed to extract payments from businesses, this bill
would in fact also curb meritorious claims by disabled
plaintiffs. The disabled community asserts that after over 40
years of state and 20 years of federal law guaranteeing full and
equal access, compliance by businesses across the state leaves
much to be desired. Thus, the value of attorney's fees and
costs, as well as the minimum $1,000 in treble damages, to
plaintiffs seeking redress is immeasurable, because without the
court's ability to make this award, no one can afford to file
suit to compel compliance.
Other laws relating to the exercise of civil rights (such as
access to senior housing, gender discrimination, discrimination
by business establishments based on specified characteristics)
provide for similar recovery of actual damages, attorney's fees
and costs, and minimum treble damages. If this bill were to
become law, it would treat disabled persons differently than
other protected classes.
5. Legislative findings and declarations are not based on
empirical data regarding these lawsuits
This bill contains legislative findings and declarations that
make sweeping statements without empirical data that support the
findings. For example, the bill states:
"Vexatious special access lawsuits unduly burden our courts
and taxpayers and do not result in improved access for those
with special access needs. Those lawsuits cost California
jobs and economic prosperity, unfairly threaten small
businesses, force businesses to respond with higher costs for
goods and services, and have adverse impacts on levels of
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 15 of ?
employment and employee compensation."
Except for the few vexatious litigants that have appeared in the
newspaper headlines about access lawsuits, there are no sources
of reliable information regarding the degree by which the equal
access laws of the state are being abused. These equal access
laws were passed to ensure that all citizens are provided the
same opportunities to avail themselves of goods and services
provided by business establishments in the state. The
enforcement mechanism has largely been these access lawsuits, in
the absence of a comprehensive educational program from the
federal government on down to the local city hall. Where the
lawsuits are brought in good faith, and accompanied by a request
for injunctive relief, the sued businesses and the disabled
person(s) have generally reached agreement on improvements to
make facilities more accessible.
Support : California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce;
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse; California Hotel and
Lodging Association; California Medical Association; California
Small Business Association; Civil Justice Association of
California; Islands Fine Burgers and Drinks; National Federation
of Independent Business
Opposition : California Foundation for Independent Living
Centers; Consumer Attorneys of California; Disability Rights
California
HISTORY
Source : An Individual
Related Pending Legislation : SB 1186 (Steinberg and Dutton)
would ban settlement demands and require attorneys to notify the
recipient of any alleged construction-related accessibility
violation 30 days prior to filing a claim. This bill is
scheduled to be heard in this Committee on May 8, 2012.
Prior Legislation :
SB 783 (Dutton, 2011) See Background.
SB 209 (Corbett & Harman, Chapter 569, Statutes of 2009)
required a CASp inspection report to remain confidential rather
than be under seal and subject to protective order.
SB 1163 (Walters)
Page 16 of ?
SB 1608 (Corbett et al., Chapter 549, Statutes of 2008) See
Background.
SB 1766 (McClintock, 2008) See Background.
AB 2533 (Keene, 2008) See Background.
SB 855 (Poochigian, 2005) See Background.
**************