Skip to main content

5% of Plaintiffs File More Than Half of All Federal ADA Cases

We analyzed 31,000+ federal ADA cases filed between 2020 and 2025. A small number of repeat plaintiffs account for the majority of all filings.

Tommy Eberle
Tommy Eberle3 min read

We pulled every federal ADA civil rights case filed in U.S. district courts between 2020 and 2025 from CourtListener, a free legal data platform run by the Free Law Project. The dataset covers roughly 31,600 cases. We parsed plaintiff names from docket captions and grouped filings by name to see how the caseload breaks down.

Here is what the numbers show.

Filing Concentration

Most plaintiffs in the dataset filed a single case. But a small group at the top of the distribution accounts for a disproportionate share of all filings. 155 plaintiffs who each filed 50 or more cases produced 18,809 of the 31,627 total dockets.

Filing concentration

A small plaintiff group produced most federal ADA filings

5%of plaintiffs filed 50+ cases
59.5%
27.9%
Serial filers50+ cases
15518,809
Repeat filers10–49 cases
3868,817
Occasional filers2–9 cases
6322,292
One-off filers1 case
1,7091,709
Source: CourtListener bulk data, federal district courts, NOS 446. Total shown: 31,627 cases from 2,882 parsed plaintiff names.

At the top of the curve, 55 plaintiffs filed 100 or more cases each, accounting for 11,984 cases (37.9% of all filings). At the other end, 1,709 plaintiffs filed exactly one case.

The five most active plaintiffs over the full period are shown below. Click any name to see their dockets on CourtListener.

Most active plaintiffs

Top five plaintiffs by total filing volume (2020-2025)

1Cohan6 districts
1,708
2Fernandez3 districts
502
3Ariza2 districts
484
4Lucius2 districts
424
5Gonzalez9 districts
404
Plaintiff names are parsed from docket captions. Common surnames may merge distinct individuals. Click a name to see matching dockets on CourtListener.

Geography

ADA filings are not evenly spread across federal districts. Five districts account for the bulk of the volume.

Top federal districts

Five districts account for most of the visible filing volume

1C.D. California
6,669
2S.D. Florida
5,786
3S.D. New York
4,812
4E.D. New York
2,847
5M.D. Florida
1,850
Source: CourtListener bulk data, federal district courts, NOS 446, filed January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2025.

C.D. California leads with 6,669 cases, followed by S.D. Florida (5,786), S.D. New York (4,812), E.D. New York (2,847), and M.D. Florida (1,850).

These numbers do not hold steady year over year. Some districts show sharp swings.

Year-over-year movement

Some districts moved sharply instead of following a steady trend

S.D. New YorkDropped to 407 in 2023 before rebounding
1,277
2022
407
2023
1,092
2025
-185
N.D. IllinoisNearly 10x increase in three years
35
2022
331
2025
+296
C.D. CaliforniaDown 43% year over year
1,231
2024
696
2025
-535
Selected districts showing notable year-over-year volatility, not a national trend.

S.D. New York dropped from 1,277 cases in 2022 to 407 in 2023, then climbed back to 1,092 by 2025. N.D. Illinois went from 35 filings in 2022 to 331 in 2025. C.D. California peaked at 1,231 in 2024 and fell to 696 the following year.

Case Duration

Cases filed by serial plaintiffs terminate faster than those filed by occasional or one-off plaintiffs.

Case duration

Serial filer cases terminated faster

62fewer median days for serial vs. one-off filer cases
One-off1–9 cases
148 days
Repeat10–49 cases
115 days
Serial50+ cases
86 days
Duration is calculated from docket filing and termination dates. About 88% of dockets had both dates populated.

Of the roughly 3,470 cases where we have outcome data, 40.9% ended in voluntary dismissal and 38% ended in settlement or consent judgment. Fewer than 2% reached any kind of trial. Outcome data is only available for about 12% of all cases in this dataset, so these numbers should be read with that limitation in mind.

Methodology

All data comes from CourtListener, which aggregates federal docket data from PACER through the RECAP project. We looked at federal district courts only.

Plaintiff names were pulled from docket captions (the "v." line). This means the data has some known rough edges: common surnames like Smith or Johnson may combine unrelated people into one count, and spelling variations may split a single party across multiple counts.

Case duration was computed from filing and termination dates on the docket (88% of cases had both dates). Outcome data comes from the FJC Integrated Database, which only covers about 12% of the cases in this period.

No Westlaw, no Lexis, no proprietary databases. Every district and plaintiff name in this article links to a CourtListener search so you can check the underlying dockets yourself.