Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21STCV33612, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV33612 Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: A
21STCV33612 Jane Doe W.L. v. Jonathan Martinez, County of Los
Angeles
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint
alleges that while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Century Regional Detention
Facility (“CRDF”), run by Defendant County of Los Angeles (“County”), Defendant
Jonathan Martinez, who was employed as a deputy, sexually harassed Plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) sexual battery, (2) intentional infliction of
emotional distress, (3) negligence, (4) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, and (5) violation of Civil Code § 51.9.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendant County argues
that the fourth cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
fails to state a claim, because that statute protects against discrimination by
business establishments providing services. CRDF is not a business establishment.
Defendant Martinez joins the motion.
Plaintiff argues
that Defendants denied her equal protection under the law because she was a
woman and Latina. A jail has been considered a business for purposes the Unruh.
If the Court is inclined to grant the motion, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend
to allege intentional discrimination in public accommodations. Plaintiff is
covered under the American Disabilities Act because she is suffering from addiction.
In reply, Defendant
argues that Plaintiff has not alleged that the County engaged in commercial
acts sufficient to qualify as a business establishment. Plaintiff alleges that
County is a municipal entity, not a business establishment. Plaintiff will not be able to cure this
defect.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The two statutory
grounds for a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is either that
the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action, or
the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438 subd. (c)(B)). A motion for
judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer and
attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters
subject to judicial notice. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep
(2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064). For the purposes of this motion, all
properly alleged material facts are deemed true as well as all facts that may
be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)
IV. DISCUSSION
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh”)
prohibits intentional discrimination in access to public accommodations. It
entitles all persons to “the full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every
kind whatsoever.” (Civ.
Code, § 51.) Unruh is limited in its application; it only
applies to business establishments that are ‘generally open to the public’ (In
re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 216), and mandates that those establishments serve
all persons without arbitrary discrimination. (Smith
v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 138, 149.)
Unruh does not cover “discriminations other than those made by a ‘business
establishment’ in the course of furnishing goods, services or facilities to its
clients, patrons or customers.” (Id.) Unruh claims are appropriate where the plaintiff
was in a relationship with an organization similar to that of a
customer-proprietor relationship. (Id.)
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff
was jailed at the CRDF, and that the acts of misconduct occurred while she was
detained. (Complaint
¶ 14.)
The County is alleged to be a municipal entity who employed Martinez as a
deputy. (Complaint ¶ 5). The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants is
not one of “customer-proprietor.”
Although the California Supreme
Court determined that the term “business establishment" be interpreted
"in the broadest sense reasonably possible the Unruh Act has yet to be applied
to claims against correctional facilities.” (Estate
of Bock v. County of Sutter (E.D.Cal. Feb. 7, 2012, No.
2:11-cv-00536-MCE-GGH) 2012 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 15720, at *28-29.) Several
district courts have explicitly found that prisons are not business
establishments under the Unruh Act. (Id.) A
prison does not qualify as a “business” because’ prisoners are not engaged in a
calling, occupation, or trade for purposes of making a livelihood or gain.
Rather, they are incarcerated by the state because of crimes which they have
committed.” (Taormina
v. California Dep't of Corrections (S.D.Cal. 1996) 946 F.Supp. 829,
834.)
Plaintiff’s case authority is
distinguishable. In Wilkins-Jones
v. County of Alameda, 859 F.Supp.2d 1039 (N.D.Cal.,2012),
the Court held that "while the County's operation of a jail may not be a
business, [the contractor] is a business establishment operating for profit
within a correctional facility.” (Wilkins-Jones
v. County of Alameda (N.D. Cal. 2012) 859 F.Supp.2d 1039,
1049.)
Plaintiff proposes to assert a claim
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) which precludes
discrimination in public accommodations. 42
U.S.C.A. § 12182 (West) Since Unruh operates “virtually
identically to the ADA,” any violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a
violation of the Unruh Act." (Bax
v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 52 F.4th 858,
873.) However, the ADA defines “public accommodations” as “private entities,”
such as inns, restaurants, zoos, or places of education (among other entities) if
the operation of such entities affects commerce. 42
U.S.C.A. § 12181 (West). The statute does not include a prison
facility. 42
U.S.C.A. § 12181 (7) (West).
V.
CONCLUSION
Leave
to amend is ordinarily given if there is a reasonable possibility that the
defect can be cured. However, it is the Plaintiff’s burden to show how and in
what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the
legal effect of his pleading. (Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial
Relations (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 298, 302). Plaintiff
has not met this burden. Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleading
is GRANTED as to the fourth cause of action for violation of Unruh, without
leave to amend.