The PDF Document to the right shows that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the petition for review of Lynn Hubbard, III, of Chico, California (an attorney at the time) who was involved in falsifying the signatures of a deceased client on a number of documents first created weeks after her death.  Financial sanctions were imposed, and the evidence in this case ultimately led to Mr. Hubbard's suspension from the practice of law in California, through separate proceedings discussed below. 

Because Mr. Hubbard is believed by many to have filed ADA/access lawsuits against thousands of defendants, his position that he was entitled to falsify a decedent's signature on documents first created after her death raised considerable concern, because no court ever accepted Mr. Hubbard's contention that the law entitled him to falsify signatures, and a number of documents filed in this case suggested that it was the policy of his lawfirm at the time (i.e., the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC) to do that.

Many consider this case to provide important evidence of a willingness of too many filers of ADA/access lawsuits to make false and/or misleading representations to courts.   Attorney David Warren Peters represented a number of defendants in this 2009 case who had received the documents with falsified signatures, and others. 

While Attorney David Warren Peters was not the prosecuting attorney in the case brought by the State Bar of California and/or the Standing Disciplinary Committee of the Southern District of California against Mr. Hubbard (i.e., in the last two decisions in the column to the right), he was called as a principal witness in each of those cases, and a substantial portion of the discipline imposed was related to the documents and information he presented.

Plaintiff's counsel: Lynn Hubbard, III, and Scottlynn Hubbard, IV, of the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

The PDF to the right shows that the California Supreme Court declined to consider the petition for review of disbarred attorney Theodore A. Pinnock (believed to be one of the largest filers of ADA/access lawsuits in history).  In short, a former client of Pinnock & Wakefield, APC, discovered that they had filed over 240 lawsuits in her name and sought money damages for conditions which would never have been a problem for her (such as a claimed failure to provide Braille and/or wheelchair accessibility) against many places she'd never been or desired to go.  Mr. Pinnock was disbarred based in substantial part on the information presented in this case (and also in re Wyatt, discussed below), and each of the parties providing information to the State Bar and courts were represented by Attorney David Warren Peters.  The two California Court of Appeals decisions are provided at right, as is the stipulation for disbarment with the State Bar of California.  

Plaintiff's counsel: David Warren Peters

Defense counsel: Theodore A. Pinnock (disbarred), David C. Wakefield, Pinnock & Wakefield, APC

The PDF to the right shows that the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals agreed with CJA's Attorney David Warren Peters that the ADA did not require the area immediately adjacent to the opening side of a door to be of any particular length.  This case was significant in that it was filed by a lawfirm which has sued thousands of defendants in ADA/access lawsuits, and which advanced this same claim against many hundreds.  If they'd been correct, untold hundreds-- and possibly hundreds of thousands-- of structures around the United States would have required costly and immediate alterations.  On information and belief, hundreds of defendants paid settlements to avoid litigating these claims.

Plaintiff's counsel: Lynn Hubbard, III, and Scottlynn Hubbard, IV, of the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

The PDFs to the right shows that both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court agreed with CJA's attorney David Warren Peters that the ADAAG did not require a dressing room bench to be exactly 48 inches wide, as the plaintiff's attorneys in this case had contended in lawsuits filed against hundreds of defendants.  If they'd have been correct, hundreds-- and possibly hundreds of thousands-- of retail locations throughout the United States would have required costly and immediate alterations of this very common condition (i.e., a dressing room bench which is longer than 48 inches).  On information and belief, hundreds of defendants paid settlements to avoid litigating this issue.

Plaintiff's counsel: Lynn Hubbard, III, and Scottlynn Hubbard, IV, of the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

In this case, CJA represented the defendant and made a motion to dismiss on the basis that a recent comprehensive renovation resulted in no conditions in the public areas being subject to claims of noncompliance with the ADA.  The plaintiff's attorney represented that he needed to inspect the property and depose defendant's expert, but ultimately never did that, so the Court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution.  We believe plaintiff's expert visited the property and concluded that little if any credible evidence in opposition to the motion could be produced.

Plaintiff's counsel: Lynn Hubbard, III, and Scottlynn Hubbard, IV, of the Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

After trial and extensive follow-up briefing, the court entered judgment for defendant per the PDF to the right.

Plaintiff's counsel: Mark D. Potter, Russell C. Handy and Steve Wedel of Potter Handy, LLP, dba the Center for Disability Access

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

Per the PDF to the right, the Court imposed terminating and monetary sanctions based on the Plaintiff's prolonged failure to provide appropriate responses to discovery.

Plaintiff's counsel: Michael A. Taibi

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

Per the PDF to the right, the Court imposed terminating and monetary sanctions based on Plaintiff's prolonged failure to provide appropriate responses to discovery.

Plaintiff's counsel: Michael A. Taibi

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters

Per the PDF to the right, the court imposed sanctions for Plaintiff's failure to appear at a proceeding where appearance was mandatory; Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case shortly thereafter.

Plaintiff's counsel: Michael A. Taibi

Defense counsel: David Warren Peters