Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00857, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00857    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     April 18, 2023                         TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         PERLA MAGENO v. POPPY CAKE BAKERY CAFÉ, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1- 10, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00857

DEMURRER

DEMURRING PARTY:       Defendant Poppy Cake Bakery Café, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Perla Mageno

SERVICE:                              Filed December 28, 2022

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 9, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed March 15, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Perla Mageno’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Poppy Cake Bakery Café, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) website violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“UCRA”).

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

LEGAL STANDARD

A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. section 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Additionally, a special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc section 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrers based on uncertainty are “granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim fails because she has failed to allege standing to bring her Unruh claim.

             “The purpose of the [UCRA] is to create and preserve “a nondiscriminatory environment in California business establishments by ‘banishing’ or ‘eradicating’ arbitrary, invidious discrimination by such establishments.” (White v. Square, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1019, 1025.) “The Act stands as a bulwark protecting each person's inherent right to ‘full and equal’ access to ‘all business establishments.’” (Ibid.)

            In White v. Square, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1023, the California Supreme Court held that “[w]hen a plaintiff has visited a business's website with intent to use its services and alleges that the business's terms and conditions exclude him or her from full and equal access to its services, the plaintiff need not enter into an agreement with the business to establish standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.” “In light of its broad preventive and remedial purposes, courts have recognized that ‘[s]tanding under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is broad.’ ” (Id. at p. 1025.) “[A]n individual bringing an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim against an online business must allege, for purposes of standing, that he or she visited the business's website, encountered discriminatory terms, and intended to make use of the business's services.” (Id. at p. 1032.)

            Plaintiff alleges she is legally blind and uses screen-reading software such as JAWS to access the internet. (Complaint ¶ 7.) Plaintiff also alleges she visited Defendant’s website. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that she encountered barriers for blind or visually-impaired people on Defendant’s website. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff alleges that she visited the website to browse the menu, place an order, and visit a brick-and-mortar location. (Id. ¶ 37.)

            Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to allege she has standing to bring a UCRA claim.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   April 18, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court