Judge: Kimberly Knill, Case: 30-2022-01278368-CU-CR-CJC, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Defendant’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Defendant, Cedar Fair LP’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, 12th Causes of Action

The first, second, third, fourth, eleventh and twelfth causes of action are for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Ralph Civil Rights Act and Bane Civil Rights Act by each Plaintiff.

The Unruh Act provides all persons are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever, 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. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (b).) Under the Unruh Act, anyone who denies, aids, or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to the Unruh Act is liable for damages. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (a).) 

The language and history of the Unruh Act indicate the legislative object was to prohibit intentional discrimination in access to public accommodations. (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1149.)

Civil Code section 51.7 (the “Ralph Act”) provides all persons have the right to be free of violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons, committed because of their political affiliation or any characteristic defined in Civil Code section 51. A person aggrieved under the Ralph Act may bring a civil action to recover damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, exemplary damages, and an award of attorney fees. (D.C. v. Harvard-Westlake School (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 836, 856; Civ. Code, § 52, subds. (b), (c).)

Civil Code, section 52.1 (the “Bane Act”) allows an individual to sue for damages if a person or persons “interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 52.1, subds. (a), (b).) The essence of a Bane Act claim is the defendant, by the specified improper means (i.e., threat, intimidation or coercion), tried to or did prevent plaintiff from doing something he or she had the right to do under the law or to force the plaintiff to do something that he or she was not required to do under the law. (King v. State of Cal. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 265, 294.)

Plaintiffs adequately allege Defendant intentionally discriminated against them (Unruh Act), were aggrieved (Ralph Act), and interfered with their Constitutional rights (Bane Act) at paragraphs 42, 49, 60, 68, 113 (p. 14:19) and 113 (p. 15:22).

5th and 6th Causes of Action for Negligence

Negligence consists of the following elements: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s damages or injuries. (Lueras v. BAS Home Loan Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 62 (Lueras).) “The existence of a duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff is a prerequisite to establishing a claim for negligence.” (Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass’n (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1095.) “Whether a duty of care exists is a question of law to be determined on a case-by-case basis.” (Lueras, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 62.)

“A defendant may owe an affirmative duty to protect another from the conduct of third parties if he or she has a special relationship with the other person.” (Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Ass’n, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1128 (cleaned up).)

Plaintiff adequately alleges duty in paragraphs 70 and 75.  Plaintiff adequately alleges the other elements of negligence in paragraphs 71-73 and 76-78.

9th and 10th Causes of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

The elements of a claim for IIED are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903.) For conduct to be outrageous it must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. (See Ess v. Eskaton Props., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 120, 130.) Liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1051.)  Extreme and outrageous conduct must be of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress. (Chang v. Lederman (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 67, 86-87.)

Plaintiffs adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct in paragraphs 93 and 102.  All other elements are adequately alleged in paragraphs 94-98 and 103-107.

Defendant to file an Answer within 5 court days.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Prejudgment Interest

Civil Code section 3288 states: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the jury.”

While discretionary prejudgment interest for unliquidated tort claims is cognizable, it is only awarded to compensate a party for the loss of property.  (Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 102.)

Plaintiffs do not allege a loss of property.

The Motion to Strike is GRANTED as to Page 15, line 18 Prayer for Relief Item 6, prejudgment interest.

Treble Damages, Punitive Damages and Attorney Fees

Given the court’s overruling of the Demurrer, the Motion is DENIED

Plaintiff to give notice.