A single prolific plaintiff’s yearslong run of disability-rights lawsuits has turned accessibility disputes into a recurring bill for small businesses across Los Angeles County. The complaints flag everything from slightly too-steep parking lots and counters that sit just out of reach to websites that will not cooperate with screen-reading software. Faced with the threat of statutory damages and mounting legal fees, many owners say it is cheaper to cut a check than to fight.
Court records reviewed by the Los Angeles Times show that a small cluster of repeat plaintiffs, often represented by the same Orange County law firm, has filed thousands of these suits. One of them, Anthony Bouyer, appears as a plaintiff in roughly 1,885 cases on the Times’ chart. The targets are usually modest neighborhood spots, from corner markets and counter-service eateries to mom-and-pop repair shops across the San Fernando Valley and beyond. Owners say the steady stream of filings feels less like a one-time hit and more like a chronic financial strain.
“This person is just suing anyone,” said Steven Barraza, whose family’s taco stand in Pacoima was served with one of the complaints. He told reporters the lawyer initially demanded $25,000 before the family negotiated the payment down to $10,000. In nearby Sylmar, another merchant told the Times his store paid about $14,000 to resolve a claim, and several owners said settlement offers landed before they had even gathered their records or measurements. Bouyer has described himself in a deposition as paralyzed following surgery and said he measures slopes with a 12-inch gauge; he did not respond to media questions, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Why do the damages add up
California law makes even small accessibility mistakes potentially expensive. The Unruh Civil Rights Act authorizes statutory damages that can start at $4,000 for certain violations, and other state statutes can pile on additional penalties and attorneys’ fees, according to the California Department of Rehabilitation. That minimum exposure, combined with the cost of hiring a lawyer and defending the case, often nudges small proprietors toward a quick settlement even when the underlying problem is minor and fixable.
Legal commentators say that court rulings extending the Americans with Disabilities Act to many online services have also fueled a surge in lawsuits over websites and apps. Those decisions left businesses vulnerable to claims that their digital storefronts are not usable with assistive technology, a trend widely dissected in legal trade publications such as Dentons/Mondaq.
Who is filing and who is representing them
Industry trackers and ADA-defense blogs report that Manning Law, an Orange County firm, has become the central shop for many of the repeat plaintiffs driving these cases. The firm’s founder, Joseph R. Manning Jr., has also drawn attention from regulators. The State Bar of California lists a suspension that left him not eligible to practice law as of Nov. 6, 2025. That mix of high-frequency plaintiffs and a volume-focused plaintiff practice has prompted complaints from business owners and questions from lawmakers, according to the JMBM ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.
What lawmakers are trying
At the Capitol, legislators are testing a “notice and cure” strategy aimed at curbing what critics see as abusive filings without wiping out enforcement altogether. Senate Bill 84, carried last year by Sen. Roger Niello, would require plaintiffs to send a detailed notice and then give qualifying small businesses 120 days to fix construction-related accessibility problems before statutory damages can be sought. Supporters say that the window would protect microbusinesses that are trying to comply, while opponents argue the policy must be carefully drawn so it does not weaken disability rights.
The bill text and committee analyses describe the 120-day grace period and spell out which businesses could qualify for limited liability, according to LegiScan.
Small shops still decide to settle
For all the political debate and legal maneuvering, most small operators say their day-to-day reality has not changed much. They still settle. Owners describe the cost, stress, and time involved in litigation as potentially ruinous for a tiny storefront with slim margins and a handful of employees.
Defense lawyers say a relatively small group of individuals file case after case and expect to be paid, a pattern that ADA-defense firms and legal analysts have been cataloging for years. Attorneys who do push back in court say it is possible to win, but they acknowledge the process is long and expensive, and many owners simply do not have the bandwidth or cash to ride out a full trial, according to Karlin Law.
The result is a kind of stalemate. Businesses with deeper pockets lobby in Sacramento and fight test cases in court, while the majority of neighborhood shops either write settlement checks or quietly remodel to get into compliance. Disability advocates say the lawsuits keep badly needed pressure on businesses to make spaces and services truly accessible. Many small proprietors, though, say the constant threat of another filing feels less like accountability and more like a squeeze they are not sure they can survive.
