Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV01712, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01712    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: W

RODOLFO ELIAS v. GALAXY SECURITY COMPANY, INC.

demurrer with motion to strike the complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 21, 2023                                     Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        22VECV01712

Moving Party:            Defendant Galaxy Security Company, Inc.

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Rodolfo Elias

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Waldie Decl. ¶¶1-3.)  

BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff Rodolfo Elias initiated this action against Defendant Galaxy Security Company, Inc. setting forth three causes of action for negligence, assault and battery, and violation of Unruh Act. Plaintiff alleges while Plaintiff was legally and lawfully simply eating a snack at the subject premises, Defendant Galaxy harassed Plaintiff because of Defendants' perception of Plaintiff’s race. Plaintiff claims with no cause and based on racial animus against Latino-American people, Defendant Galaxy harassed, assaulted and battered, and ultimately, maced Plaintiff in the face with a big can of "bear mace" for no reason.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Galaxy Security Company, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is OVERRULED. Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Galaxy Security Company, Inc. demurs to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for Violation of Unruh Act on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because the allegations are not pled with sufficient specificity pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e).

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.) On the other hand, a plaintiff alleging 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].) “An organization has sufficient businesslike attributes to qualify as a business establishment when it appears to have been operating in a capacity that is the functional equivalent of a commercial enterprise.”  (Carter v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 808, 825.)

Defendant Galaxy argues Plaintiff has not alleged he sought access to public accommodations or that Defendant Galaxy is a business establishment which holds itself out to public accommodations. Defendant also argues Plaintiff simply uses conclusory language to allege the altercation between Plaintiff and Defendant’s employee was a result of racial animus against Latino American people. Moreover, there is also a lack of causal nexus between the alleged discrimination and the plaintiff’s harm, namely a Latino American security guard maced Plaintiff due to Plaintiff being a Latino-American.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues he has sufficiently pled that Defendant is a business establishment who denied Plaintiff full and equal accommodations, advantages, privileges, or services. Plaintiff contends “business establishment” must be interpreted “in the broadest sense reasonably possible.” (See Doe v. California Lutheran High School Association (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 828, 837.) As such, there is no dispute that the parking lot is an extension and a part of what constitutes the Subject Premises. Plaintiff also states their allegations are sufficient to demonstrate Defendant’s conduct was motivated by racial animus against Salvadoreans and was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

The court finds Plaintiff has adequately alleged facts sufficient to support a cause of action for violation of the Unruh Act. Plaintiff has alleged Defendant provides security guard services, which can be considered as services being carried out in the commercial sense. Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged Plaintiff’s race was a substantial motiving reason for Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff also generally alleges Defendant Galaxy has a pattern and history of racial discrimination against Latino-American shoppers at the subject market. (Compl. ¶15.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant maced Plaintiff in the face with a big can of “bear mace” for no reason other than racial animus. (Compl. ¶16.) These allegations are sufficient to suggest Plaintiff’s race was a substantial motiving reason for Defendant’s conduct that day.

Accordingly, Defendant Galaxy’s demurrer to the third cause of action is overruled.

Motion to Strike

Defendant Galaxy moves to strike all paragraphs related to Plaintiff’s third cause of cause of action for violation of the Unruh Act, including Plaintiff’s prayer for treble damages and attorney fees.

Because the court overrules defendant Galaxy’s demurrer to the third cause of action, Defendant Galaxy’s motion to strike is also denied.