Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01164, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01164    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 3, 2023                            TRIAL DATE: February 6, 2024

CASE:                         ORLANDO GARCIA v. BO VAN TRAN; CONNIE THUY NHAN.

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV01164

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Bo Van Tran and Connie Thuy Nhan

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Orlando Garcia

SERVICE:                              Filed February 27, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed April 18, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed April 20, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendants move to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint that relate to Plaintiff’s prayer for injunctive relief.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Orlando Garcia’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants Bo Van Tran and Connie Thuy Nhan (“Defendants”) failed to comply with disability access laws as owners of Bo’s Altadena Market (“Store”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on November 23, 2022, alleging two causes of action for (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“UCRA”) and (2) violation of the California Disables Persons Act (“CDPA”).

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendants’ requests for judicial notice for Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).

            Defendants’ requests for judicial notice for Exhibits 2 and 3 are granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)   

DISCUSSION

            Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for injunctive relief. Defendants argue that this motion is proper because a specific reading of the UCRA’s remedies leads to the conclusion that a mandatory injunction is not expressly authorized by statute.

             “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.)

            Civil Code section 52 (“section 52”), subdivision (c)(3) requires a UCRA claimant to include “[a] request for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or persons responsible for the conduct, as the complainant deems necessary to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights described in this section.” Defendants argue that the allowance for “preventative relief” should be read as only allowing prohibitive injunctions rather than mandatory injunctions. Defendants argue that if Plaintiffs seek mandatory relief, they must base their claim on Civil Code section 55.

            Defendants’ argument fails. First, section 52, subdivision (c), provides: “Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights described in this section, and that conduct is of that nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of those rights, . . . any person aggrieved by the conduct may bring a civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint. The complaint shall contain the following”. The language from Civil Code section 52, subdivision (c)(3), is a requirement to bring a claim. To read it as a limitation of remedies a claimant could bring goes against the plain language of the statute.

            Secondly, “ ‘[t]he rules of statutory construction provide that “ ‘[u]nder the guise of construction, a court should not rewrite the law, add to it what has been omitted, omit from it what has been inserted, give it an effect beyond that gathered from the plain and direct import of the terms used, or read into it an exception, qualification, or modification that will nullify a clear provision or materially affect its operation so as to make it conform to a presumed intention not expressed or otherwise apparent in the law.’ ” ’ ” (Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 385, 393.)

            Defendants ask this court to read in a qualification to the requirements of section 52, subdivision (c). The court declines to do so. Section 52, subdivision (c), requires a claimant to include a request for preventative relief, “including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction”. Plaintiff has sought injunctive relief as required by statute.

            Lastly, in Thurston v. Midvale Corp. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 634, 638, the trial court issued an injunction mandating the defendant redesign its website to enable equal access to individuals with disabilities. In Thurston, the plaintiff’s claim was based on Civil Code section 51, subdivision (f). (Id. at p. 637.) The Court upheld the issuance of the injunction. (Id. at p. 655.)

            In opposition, Defendants argue that the Court in Thurston, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 652, did not expressly decide on the meaning of “preventative relief” as stated in section 52, subdivision (c)(3). Defendant is correct. However, in Thurston the Court affirmed the issuance of an injunction that required the defendant to redesign its website, which is a type of mandatory injunction. (Id. at p. 655.)

            Defendants are raising the issue of whether Plaintiff can seek injunction under sections 51 and 52 at the pleading stage. None of Defendants’ arguments establish that the statutory language of the UCRA prohibits the type of injunction Plaintiff seeks.

            Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   May 3, 2023                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org