Hubbard

Did the $198k fee award make a difference?  Read the recent decision and decide for yourself!Document
$25k award of 29 Feb 08
Document
$198k award of 6 Jul 07

ITS A MIRACLE!  

(WATCH SURVEILANCE VIDEO OF PLAINTIFFS WALKING)

This video footage was obtained from public records (Hubbard v. Rite Aid, United States District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego), Case Number 02 CV 2497 WQH (BLM) [Exhibit "6" to Motion to Declare Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants]

At least 182 lawsuits have been filed on behalf of plaintiffs (some are posted at the bottom of this page).  Many, if not all, claim:

  • The Hubbards require the use of motorized wheelchairs and a mobility-equipped vehicle, when traveling about in public.” (typically paragraph 8; emphasis added)

  • “The Hubbards  . . . encountered barriers (both physical and intangible) that interfered with— if not outright denied— their ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations offered at the facility.“ (typically paragraph 10; emphasis added)  

Have you been sued by this law firm?  If so:

  • Have you been asked to agree that a settlement with these plaintiffs "compensates Plaintiff for personal physical injuries purportedly suffered" or any similar characterization to avoid additional or increased litigation?  [i.e., characterizing the payment as compensation for personal injury could make it non-taxable to the recipients]  If so, please Contact Us

 

  • Have you been asked to report a settlement payment to the law firm, rather than the plaintiff(s), for tax purposes?  If so, please Contact Us

 

  • Have you requested substantiation for any physical injuries claimed by any client of this law firm?  If so, please Contact Us, whether or not you have received it.

Media
Dad 1
Media
Dad 2
Media
Dad 3
Media
Mom 1
Media
Mom 2
Media
Mom 3

Adverse Decisions
Why do so many judges disagree with the Hubbards?

If you think they are advancing claims they know
 are meritless just to vex you into an increased 
financial settlement, please
Contact Us!

Document
Wilson v. Kayo - $25k Sanctions
<= "Plaintiff and his attorneys are cautioned . . . to cease vexatious practices and to take steps to ensure future lawsuits are prosecuted in good faith."
 
Document
Wilson v. Kayo - dismissal
Document
Harris v. Stonecrest
Document
Doran v. 7-11 - 9th Circuit re "no public restrooms" policy; this is huge
Document
Cross v. Pacific Coast Plaza
Document
Harris v. Del Taco - plans to return to a DT 650 miles away!?!
Document
Jones v. Young Pubs - Ordered to Produce Tax ID after refusing!
Document
Jones v. Wild Oats-- $198k sanction?!?!
Document
Peters v. CJK
Document
Feezor v. Aero Mobility - only $2,370 in fees were reasonable!
Document
Hubbard v. Sobreck - "contrived; not credible"
Document
Wilson v. Costco
Document
Martinez v. Rite-Aid
Document
D'Lil v. BW Encina
Document
Doran v. Del Taco
Document
Chapman v. Cattlemens
Document
Peters v. Winco
Document
Wilson v. Norbreck
Document
White v. Divine Investments
Document
White v. Save Mart
Document
White v. GMRI
Document
Jones v. Ralph's
Note: Some or all of the decisions shown herein may have been appealed, reconsidered, overruled or otherwise fully or partially invalidated; check court records for the most current information in each case.  Other cases may exist with different holdings or in which judges and/or justices have partially or fully agreed with the Hubbards.  This is not an exhaustive or complete list of all cases of any type or category.

Hubbard v. Rite Aid

Document
Motion for Vexatious Litigant Status
Document
Amended motion prohibiting vexatious lawsuits
Document
Declaration by R. Sievers in opposition to def. motion
Document
Def. objections to plaintiffs argument in plaintiffs req. for judicial notice
Document
Def. reply to opposition re. motion to dismiss
Document
Def. reply to opposition to motion re. prohibiting vexatious lawsuits
Document
Def. request for judicial notice of public records re. vexatious lawsuits
Document
Def. request for Judicial Notice of Court Order
Document
Motion for pre-filing order prohibiting vexatious lawsuits
Document
Motion to Dismiss
Document
Plaintiffs Opposition to motion re. vexatious lawsuits
 

Various Hubbard Lawsuits

Hubbard v. Del TacoHubbard v. 7-ElevenHubbard v. American Drug Stores
HUbbard v. Catalina Rest.Hubbard v. Claim JumperHubbard v. COCOS Rest.
Hubbard v. Contexual Trading Co.Hubbard v. CSK AutoHubbard Guitar Center Stores
Hubbard v. GUPTAHubbard v. Hausten LLCHubbard v. Hawaii Motor Inc
Hubbard v. Jack in the Box Inc Hubbard v. K Mart IncHubbard v. KFC
Hubbard v. KFC CorpHubbard v. Kohls Dept. Stores Hubbard v. Marshalls of CA
Hubbard v. Moer Foods Inc Hubbard v. Palm City PlazaHubbard v. Piebush Enterprises
Hubbard v. SECV INCHubbard v. Smart & Final Hubbard v. Sobreck LLC
Hubbard v. Taco Bell CorpHubbard v. Vine Ripe Market Hubbard v. Wal Mart Stores Inc
Hubbard v. Worldwide Auto PartsHubbard v. Yardage TownHubbard v. Young Publicans
Hubbard v. Best WesternHubbard v. Pier 1  

This website is brought to you by ADAaccountability and Citizens Against Predatory Lawsuits. By your continued viewing or use of this website you thereby agree to and acknowledge the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy. If you do not acknowledge and agree to those terms and conditions, please leave this site immediately and make no further use of any of the content therein.

© 2003-06 ADA Accountability