California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

AB 539 — Unruh Civil Rights Act: high-frequency litigants.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, except in complaints that allege physical injury or damage to property, requires a complaint asserting a construction-related accessibility claim, as defined, filed by or on behalf of a high-frequency litigant to state, among other things, the number of complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility claim that the high-frequency litigant has filed during the 12 months before filing the complaint and the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant's business. Existing law defines "high-frequency litigant" to mean a person who utilizes court resources in actions arising from alleged construction-related access violations at such a high level that it is appropriate that additional safeguards apply so as to ensure that the claims are warranted, including, subject to certain exceptions, an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation. For the purpose of defining the term "high-frequency litigant," this bill would revise and recast the terms "construction-related accessibility claim" and "construction-related accessibility violation" to "accessibility-related violation" and would instead include in the definition of "high-frequency litigant" an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 5 or more high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging an accessibility-related violation. Existing law makes a person who denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 and certain provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act liable for each and every offense for the actual damages and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of 3 times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than $4,000, and any attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in those provisions. This bill would prohibit a high-frequency litigant from recovering any amount, other than actual damages, pursuant to those provisions that exceeds $1,000 for each offense. The bill would also prohibit a party alleging an accessibility-related violation due to disability pursuant to those provisions from alleging more than one violation per defect and from, through repeated visits, using the previously identified defect as the basis for additional damages. The bill would also prohibit a plaintiff from alleging an accessibility-related violation unless the plaintiff had a bona fide intent to be a customer of the business at the time that the plaintiff accessed the business.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  4. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  5. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  6. From printer. May be heard in committee March 11.

  7. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 539 do?
Existing law, except in complaints that allege physical injury or damage to property, requires a complaint asserting a construction-related accessibility claim, as defined, filed by or on behalf of a high-frequency litigant to state, among other things, the number of complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility claim that the high-frequency litigant has filed during the 12 months before filing the complaint and the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant's business. Existing law defines "high-frequency litigant" to mean a person who utilizes court resources in actions arising from alleged construction-related access violations at such a high level that it is appropriate that additional safeguards apply so as to ensure that the claims are warranted, including, subject to certain exceptions, an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation. For the purpose of defining the term "high-frequency litigant," this bill would revise and recast the terms "construction-related accessibility claim" and "construction-related accessibility violation" to "accessibility-related violation" and would instead include in the definition of "high-frequency litigant" an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 5 or more high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging an accessibility-related violation. Existing law makes a person who denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 and certain provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act liable for each and every offense for the actual damages and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of 3 times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than $4,000, and any attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in those provisions. This bill would prohibit a high-frequency litigant from recovering any amount, other than actual damages, pursuant to those provisions that exceeds $1,000 for each offense. The bill would also prohibit a party alleging an accessibility-related violation due to disability pursuant to those provisions from alleging more than one violation per defect and from, through repeated visits, using the previously identified defect as the basis for additional damages. The bill would also prohibit a plaintiff from alleging an accessibility-related violation unless the plaintiff had a bona fide intent to be a customer of the business at the time that the plaintiff accessed the business.
Who sponsors AB 539?
AB 539 is sponsored by Nguyen, Stephanie (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 539?
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 539?
Track AB 539 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 539

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 539

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →