Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV35271, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35271    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant 1910 Cypress LLC (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers.  No reply papers were filed.  Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”); and (2) violations of the California Disabled Persons Act (the “CDPA”). 

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, visited a restaurant owned by Moving Defendant.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 1-3, 8.)  Plaintiff observed that the path of travel at the Restaurant’s main entrance did not comply with requirements imposed by the Americans With Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).  (Complaint ¶ 10-12.)  The layout of the entryway prevented Plaintiff from being able to operate his wheelchair in order to enter the Restaurant without difficulty.  (Complaint ¶ 13.)

Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the Complaint on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. 

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)  The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts.  (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.)  With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.  (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)  Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored.  (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)  A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.  (Id.)  A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

As a preliminary matter, Moving Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are moot because the alleged deviations from ADA accessibility requirements no longer exist at the Restaurant.  This argument, however, is not based on the allegations in the Complaint and is therefore not a proper basis for challenging the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations but might rather be properly addressed by a Motion for Summary Judgment.  In addition, although the Demurrer includes a considerable discussion of Plaintiff’s status as a “high-frequency litigant” as defined under CCP sections 425.50 and 425.55, Moving Defendant does not argue that Complaint does not comply with the pleading requirements set forth in CCP section 425.50.

First Cause of Action

The Unruh Act provides: all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.  (Civ. Code § 51, subd.  (b).)  A violation of any of any individual under the ADA also constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act.  (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (f).)  Unruh Act claims which are based on a violation of the ADA, do not require proof of intentional discrimination.  (Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1026, 1038-39.)  To establish a violation of the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) a covered disability; (2) the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of the disability.  (Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1048.)

            The Complaint sufficiently alleges violations of the ADA: Plaintiff visited the Restaurant and encountered conditions that limited his ability to operate his wheelchair and access the Restaurant.  Moving Defendant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the Complaint’s allegations of intentional discrimination misstate the appropriate legal standard.  Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is based on an alleged ADA violation and therefore does not require proof of intentional discrimination.  (Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1026, 1038-39.)  Furthermore, Moving Defendant’s challenges to particular items of damages requested in the Complaint are unavailing because a demurrer cannot be sustained to part of a cause of action or to a particular type of damage or remedy.  (See Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1047.)  The Court therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the first cause of action.

Second Cause of Action

            Under the CPDA, individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motorbuses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons.  (Civ. Code § 54.1, subd. (a)(1).)  Intent is not a requirement in actions involving money damages brought under the CDPA.  (Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda (N.D. Cal. 2012) 859 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1053.)

            The Complaint sufficiently alleges a CPDA claim, and as with the Unruh Act claim, Moving Defendant’s arguments regarding intent and specific items of damages are not persuasive.  The Court therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the second cause of action.  Moving Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the Complaint within 20 court days of the date of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 25th day of April 2023