Judge Donald F. Gaffney, Case Martin v. Nutrawise Health Titlehere Beauty Corporation 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Martin v. Nutrawise Health & Beauty Corporation, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Nutrawise Health & Beauty Corp.’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED. (ROA 78 & 86.)

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (ROA 63.)

Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants Declarations, Nos. 1 to 3 are SUSTAINED. (ROA 82.) On a Demurrer, the court only considers the Complaint and properly judicially noticed documents.

Recent Case: There is a recent case that is on point regarding (1) intentional discrimination and (2) online only businesses. Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 1, 2022, No. B314476) 2022 WL 3025828, at *1 (ROA 86, Exhibit A.)

In Martinez, Plaintiff alleged a single violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.) (the Unruh Act). The operative complaint alleged CW violated the Unruh Act by intentionally maintaining a retail website that was inaccessible to the visually impaired because it was not fully compatible with screen reading software. Initially, the court sustained the Demurrer to the Complaint with leave to amend. Then, a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed. The Demurrer to the FAC was sustained without leave to amend, and the FAC was dismissed. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

”As to intentional discrimination, the California Supreme Court has held that the discriminatory effect of a facially neutral policy or action is not alone a basis for inferring intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act. (See Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005) 36 Cal.4th 824, 854, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 565, 115 P.3d 1212 (Koebke).) It follows that we cannot infer intentional discrimination from Martinez's alleged facts that he made CW aware of the discriminatory effect of CW's facially neutral website, and that CW did not ameliorate these effects.”

“As to the ADA violation theory, Martinez has not alleged, as he must in order for Title III of the ADA to apply, that CW's website constitutes a “place of public accommodation.” (42 U.S.C. § 12182 (a).) Under current law, we cannot read this phrase as including retail websites without any connection to a physical space. The statutory language does not include a category that encompasses such websites, and Congress has chosen not to amend the ADA to clarify whether and under what circumstances a website can constitute a “place of public accommodation”—despite Congress recognizing over 20 years ago the lack of clarity on this point and the resulting federal circuit split that persists today.”

Stare Decisis: “Under the doctrine of stare decisis, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of stare decisis makes no sense. The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California. Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court. Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court.” (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)

“What should a trial court do when confronted with a published Court of Appeal opinion which compels it to rule one way when it believes that the opinion is erroneous? First, it has no choice but to follow the declared law in the appellate opinion ‘wherever the facts of the case are not fairly distinguishable from the facts of the case in which [the appellate court has] declared the applicable principle of law. . . . It is simply not appropriate for the trial court to state its disagreement and rule contrary to the appellate opinion. Second, the trial court should make a record articulating why it believes the binding opinion is erroneous and should be revisited by the appellate court which is free to either disagree with or overrule the opinion.” (Cuccia v. Superior Court (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 347, 354.)

The Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. decision is directly on point. The Court of Appeal has decided the key issues on the same or substantially similar facts. This court is required to follow this precedent.

Leave to Amend: “Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) There is no apparent manner that the Complaint can be amended to cure the pleading defects. Unless Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. is reversed or the legislation is amended, this pleading will fail to state a cause of action.

Moving party to give notice.