Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00138, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00138    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      October 12, 2023                                            TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         PERLA MAGENO, an individual, v. JBH ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00138

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant JBH Enterprises, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Perla Mageno

SERVICE:                              Filed May 2, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed September 29, 2023

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Perla Mageno’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant JBH Enterprises, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) website violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“UCRA”). Plaintiff filed her complaint on January 20, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint 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).) 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 demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint.

             “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 has pleaded facts sufficient to allege an Unruh violation claim. Defendant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Defendant relies on non-binding cases and attempts to require a higher standard for pleadings than is applicable. Additionally, Defendant relies on extrinsic evidence, which is not proper at the demurrer stage, and even submits an improper exhibit list. “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed[.]” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s is overruled.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is OVERRULED.

            Defendant is ordered to file an ANSWER within 10 days’ notice of this ruling.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   October 11, 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