Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 2020-01167882, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer

Defendant Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc.’s special and general demurrers to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) of Plaintiffs Steve Frye, George St. George, and Andrew Layus are OVERRULED.

As to the special demurrer, Defendant fails to explain how the SAC is uncertain. The SAC is not so confusing Defendant cannot discern what it must respond to. (See Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139.)

A general demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the operative complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the four corners of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code sections 451–452.

It is the objective of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to prohibit businesses from engaging in unreasonable, arbitrary or invidious discrimination. (Pizzaro v. Lamb’s Players Theater (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1171.) A policy or practice that involves arbitrary, class-based distinctions, including those based on gender, will fall within the scope of the act. (Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 24.) It not only includes situations where a business excludes individuals altogether, but where treatment is unequal. (Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges (2008) 169 Cal. App. 4th 523, 527.) In either case, the plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination. (Id.) If a strong public policy exists in favor of discriminatory treatment, courts have found the discriminatory treatment reasonable, and therefore, not arbitrary. (Sargoy v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 8 Cal. App. 4th 1039.)

Here, Plaintiffs have alleged discrimination on the basis of sex. The SAC alleges the discrimination was intentional. (SAC ¶ 26 [There is no other way to interpret the words “women only”…].) As to Defendant’s other challenges, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged standing. (SAC ¶¶ 14–15.) Plaintiffs have alleged harm on behalf of a class (see, e.g., SAC ¶ 22) and are therefore correct that allegations of harm to them during the class period adequately allege standing. (Id. [denial of discount and payment at full price].) (This does not prejudge whether Plaintiffs will be able to meet class certification requirements.) Finally, as to Plaintiffs’ negligence claim, it is adequately pled based on the denial of equal treatment. (SAC ¶¶ 54–57.)

Defendant contends that questions such as public policy justifying distinctions of treatment between males and females can be determined on demurrer rather than on an evidentiary record. However, the complaint alleges gender discrimination, and Defendant’s arguments regarding public policy and the validity of Women’s Golf Day are best resolved on an evidentiary record. (See, e.g., Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 24, 36-37; Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (2008) 169 Cal. App. 4th 523.)

Motion to Strike

Based on the ruling above, and in light of the allegations of ongoing harm to a class, the allegations provide a basis for injunctive relief. (SAC ¶¶ 19–21), and the motion to strike is DENIED. Nothing in the Unruh Civil Rights Act or cases interpreting it suggests that an injunction is only available where money damages would be inadequate. On the contrary, one of the express purposes of the act is to prevent and enjoin prohibited conduct.   (C.C.P. § 52(c)(3).)

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

The Court declines to rule on the requests for judicial notice as the documents were immaterial to the rulings.

Moving party to give notice.