# Chicken Man vs. chicken lawyer



## mark handler (May 11, 2012)

May 10, 2012 Updated: 3:57 p.m.

Chicken Man vs. chicken lawyer

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/simmons-353627-chicken-potter.html

By FRANK MICKADEITCOLUMNIST / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Something about the message on my voice mail stirred a memory from deep down in the gray matter. Yes, the caller was talking about an issue I've recently written about – O.C. businesses being shaken down by a San Diego lawyer and his predatory plaintiffs for violations of A.D.A. laws. But that wasn't what this memory was about. Something about the location – P.C.H. in Sunset Beach. And the business – a restaurant. And the name of the defendant – Sanford Simmons.

This went back much deeper in the Mickadeit Files than two months. It felt like pre-column stuff. Pre-Internet, even. I went into the archives and there it was. Twenty-four years ago, I'd covered a code-violation oddity that made for the kind of insignificant journalism I was to later turn into a full-time gig.

Simmons had owned a restaurant called The Stuf'd Chicken. He'd been cited for mounting a 6-foot-tall mechanical chicken on an outdoor sign. The bird, driven by a phonograph motor, "waved" one of its yellow, feathery arms, beckoning motorists on P.C.H. It was good for business, but it ran, uh, afoul, of the code, which prohibited such moving signage.

"We've got a lot of money tied up in that chicken," Simmons told me at the time. He organized a "Save Our Chicken" rally, and even took the bird into court, but the judge wouldn't let it in. Eventually, Simmons took the chicken down.

It all came back as I pulled into the parking lot at Harry's Grill Friday. This was the Stuf'd Chicken back in the day. "We meet again," I said, shaking Simmons' hand. He still owns the property but Harry's is owned by another man. Simmons walked me through the latest.

A couple of weeks back, he got a letter from an Irvine defense attorney offering to represent him in a lawsuit. What lawsuit? Simmons wondered. Turns out, the same plaintiff's lawyer who had sued El Don Liquor just down the highway has now sued Simmons. But Simmons hadn't been served. The defense lawyer had found the case, as many do, by monitoring courthouse filings.

The lawsuit says that a Jon Carpenter of Los Angeles went to Harry's in March and found that its handicap space did not have an eight-foot-wide access aisle on the passenger side, and there was no wheelchair ramp. He wanted $4,000 plus attorney fees and expenses, which are allowed under state law.

Simmons didn't wait to be served. He immediately hired a concrete guy to put in a ramp and he moved the handicap space about 20 feet to the area nearest the door. This cost him about $1,600. The work was just finishing up when I visited.

"I don't mind spending that – it's clear I'm not in compliance, OK?" he said. "I was in compliance when it was built, but I never received any notice the law had changed. My position is, I'm in compliance now. I'll tell the attorney I'm really sorry. I'll invite them down for lunch."

In other words, Simmons was thinking maybe Carpenter and his attorney, Mark Potter, really were all about A.D.A. compliance. That Carpenter really was intending to go to Harry's for a bite to eat, and really was bummed he couldn't get out of his van, and that being a strong advocate for disabled rights, he filed a righteous lawsuit.

Back in the days of the Stuf'd Chicken I might have thought so, too. In that case, the county ultimately didn't fine Simmons because he complied. But 24 more years of journalism and three years of law school made me smile at Simmons' naïvete. Carpenter, who lives in L.A., has filed at least 49 such claims against O.C. businesses alone since 2007. Like the plaintiff in the El Don case, he hired Potter, who has filed hundreds. Potter has refused to return my calls.

But bless him, Simmons tried. He emailed Potter photos of the improvements this week. "We are ready for Mr. Jon Carpenter and guest to take us up on our FREE offer of LUNCH or DINNER at Harry's Grill ... " Simmons wrote. "Again we are all very sorry that our 'Van Accessible' physically challenged parking space was not as close to the entrance as it is now required. Thank you, Jon Carpenter for bringing this to our attention."

Potter's reply: "Thank you for sending the photos. The parking lot looks good. My client will settle the case for $12,000. I look forward to hearing back from you."

Potter's response to Simmons was for three times what he asked in the lawsuit. That's how you play the game.

Mickadeit writes Mon.-Fri. Contact him at 714-796-4994 or fmickadeit@ocregister.com


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 11, 2012)

Does the DOJ ever pay a surprise visit to lawyers to audit them?

I would complain if they gave Mr. Potter a little bit of the Sheriff Joe treatment.


----------



## Mac (May 11, 2012)

I wonder if Potter's office is ADA compliant?


----------



## mark handler (May 11, 2012)

Mac said:
			
		

> I wonder if Potter's office is ADA compliant?


Yes it is they are in a new building

http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS331US331&q=9845+Erma+Road+Suite+300+San+Diego,+CA+92131&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x80dbf91a0a4fff09:0xae5badab17e81063,9845+Erma+Rd+%23300,+San+Diego,+CA+92131&gl=us&ei=7TKtT5CLJ4mJiAKIuPGVBw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 11, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Yes it is they are in a new buildinghttp://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS331US331&q=9845+Erma+Road+Suite+300+San+Diego,+CA+92131&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x80dbf91a0a4fff09:0xae5badab17e81063,9845+Erma+Rd+%23300,+San+Diego,+CA+92131&gl=us&ei=7TKtT5CLJ4mJiAKIuPGVBw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA


At least based upon the Proposed Accessibility Guidelines (7/26/2011) I see a few PROW non-compliance issues at the north drive.  Fed Ex Box decreases the minimum required side walk width to less than 36 inches.  Driveways are not tabled resulting in a cross slope greater than 2 percent.


----------



## mark handler (May 11, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> At least based upon the Proposed Accessibility Guidelines (7/26/2011) I see a few PROW non-compliance issues at the north drive.  Fed Ex Box decreases the minimum required side walk width to less than 36 inches.  Driveways are not tabled resulting in a cross slope greater than 2 percent.


The property owner is not usually responsible for PROW and driveways are not a POT in CA

There is a POT from the sidewalk


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 11, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The property owner is not usually responsible for PROW and driveways are not a POT in CAThere is a POT from the sidewalk


So, as far as Mr. Potter is concerned, or not concerned as the case may be, with the civil injustices occurring in his front yard to such as a degree to try and extort/sue money from the parties responsible for PROW compliance?


----------



## mark handler (May 11, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> So, as far as Mr. Potter is concerned, or not concerned as the case may be, with the civil injustices occurring in his front yard to such as a degree to try and extort/sue money from the parties responsible for PROW compliance?


Calm down. Relax and take a deep breath


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 11, 2012)

I don't think I need to be overly excited to acknowledge Mr. Potter's hypocritical behavior on his legal crusade, especially when he ignores violations every day as he drives over them getting to and from work (unless of course PROW projects are exempt from legal action).

The article addresses one layer of the issue (insert beating-dead-horse emoticon here), his google imaging and maps of his new office building add another layer to the discussion (IMO).  Please forgive any vitriolic tones in my previous posts.


----------



## jim baird (May 14, 2012)

The lawyer is testing the waters to see what the "market" will bear.  Were he the CEO of a publicly traded corporation he would be self-righteous in his justification on behalf of his shareholders.


----------

