Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00902, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00902    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: O

REBECCA CASTILLO vs MY WORLD ENTERPRISES, INC (21PSCV00902)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Tentative Ruling

 

Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED

without prejudice.  

 

Background

 

Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo (“Plaintiff”) is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using a computer.

 

On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act[1]

 

On January 4, 2022, default was entered against Defendant MY WORLD ENTERPRISES, INC.

 

On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed her second application for default judgment, which the court denied on October 5, 2022.

On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff re-filed her application.

 

Discussion

 

The court previously denied Plaintiff’s application stating the following: “[W]hile Plaintiff has provided one screenshot, that is not sufficient as she makes her allegations based upon encountering ‘multiple pages containing insufficient navigational headings requiring [her] to expend substantial additional time to access information” and an ‘inaccessible slideshow.’”

 

Plaintiff submits the same information; thus, failing to cure the defect. 

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the court again denies Plaintiff’s application.


            [1]           Plaintiff’s single cause of action is for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified at Civil Code sections 51 and 52. 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.) A violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also qualifies as a violation of Unruh. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f).) Moreover, “[w]hoever denies, aids, or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction” contrary to the Unruh Act is liable for damages. (Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a).) By its terms, the Unruh Act applies only to “business establishments.” (Civ. Code, § 51.) Recent California cases have clarified that this concept is broader than the concept of “places of public accommodation” as used in the ADA. Specifically, in California, a website, that is, a business whose offerings are made entirely by way of an internet connection and one’s own computer or device, may qualify as a business establishment under Unruh. (See White v. Square, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1019, 1027.)