Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV16539, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16539    Hearing Date: January 9, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 9, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Tangerine Hotels Palm Springs, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Brittney Mejico

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff sued Defendant, asserting one cause of action for violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website is inaccessible for blind and visually impaired individuals.

ANALYSIS

A. Demurrer to Complaint

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Under the Unruh Act, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal . . . and no matter what their . . . disability [or other protected characteristic] . . . are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code § 51; see also CACI No. 3066.) “Whoever denies, aids, or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction” contrary to the Unruh Act is liable for damages. (Civ. Code, § 52(a).) A violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also qualifies as a violation of Unruh. (Civ. Code § 51(f).)

A cause of action under Unruh consists of the following elements: (1) the defendant denied the plaintiff access to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in a business establishment; (2) the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class was a motivating factor for this denial; and (3) defendants’ wrongful conduct caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm. (See Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda (2012) 859 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1048.) Importantly, “[a] plaintiff who establishes a violation of the ADA . . . need not prove intentional discrimination in order to obtain damages under section 52.” (Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 665.) By contrast, a plaintiff establishing an Unruh violation that is not also an ADA violation must establish that the discrimination was intentional. (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1172; see Long v. Playboy Enterprises Intern., Inc. (2014) 565 Fed.Appx. 646, 647-648 [observing that the Munson Court’s holding did not disturb the requirement that a non-ADA Unruh claim be based on intentional discrimination].)

Defendant demurs to the complaint on the grounds Plaintiff has failed to allege that the website’s lack of accessibility impeded her ability to access Defendant’s physical hotel location, that Plaintiff was a bona fide customer of Defendant’s business, and that Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff.

On demurrer, the Court must take Plaintiff’s allegations as true. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website prevented her from determining the location of Defendant’s hotel and deterred her from visiting the hotel. (Compl. 23-24.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant intentionally discriminated against her by failing to remedy the website after being notified of its inaccessibility to visually impaired people. These allegations are sufficient to establish Plaintiff intended to patronize Defendant’s physical location and Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

B. Motion to Strike

“Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court." (CCP § 436.)

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief to remedy the accessibility issues of Defendant’s website on the ground that Unruh allows only “preventative” injunctive relief. Defendant does not provide any binding authority which states that Unruh bars injunctive relief to remedy a website’s accessibility issues. And as pointed out by Plaintiff, Civ. Code § 52(c)(3) provides that a Plaintiff may request any “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.” Plaintiff alleges injunctive relief is necessary to make the website accessible to visually impaired people.

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.