Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV12330, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12330    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 45

MARTIN v. MY-D PINS AND COLLECTIBLES

DEMURRER to plaintiff’s complaint

Date of Hearing:        March 25, 2025                     Trial Date:       None set.  

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        24STCV12330

Moving Party:            Defendant My-D Pins and Collectibles  

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Dominick Martin   

Meet and Confer:      None

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2024, plaintiff Dominick Martin filed a complaint for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against My-D Pins and Collectibles, alleging that as a blind person, he tried to access the defendant’s website, but the website unlawfully impeded his access.  On July 8, 2024, the defendant demurred to the complaint.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant My-D Pins and Collectibles’ demurrer to the complaint is overruled.  

ANALYSIS

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the following: (1) Articles of Organization of My-D Pins and Collectibles, filed on October 1, 2021; (2) Statement of Information, filed on January 24, 2022; (3) May 15, 2024 search results of My-D Pins and Collectibles, LLC on the California Secretary of State website; (4) May 10, 2025 search results of My-D Pins and Collectibles LLC on the California Secretary of State website; and (5) State Bar of California search of Josue Cordon.

The Court grants the first two requests. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c); see Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1484, fn. 12.) It denies the other requests. Plaintiff has not stated what they are requesting judicial notice of – the existence of the website or its contents. While the Court may take judicial notice of the existence of websites, it may not accept their contents as true. (Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 193.)

Unruh Civil Rights Claim

Defendant demurs on the following grounds: (1) the cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to allege when and where the violation occurred; (2) it fails to prove the defendant’s website is a “place of business” as required under the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) there is no proof that the plaintiff contacted the defendant before filing suite to cure alleged access barriers on the website; (4) the cause of action does not plead intentionality; and (5) the cause of action is moot because the website has been removed.

To state a valid claim under the Unruh Civil Right Act, the plaintiff must allege the following: (1) he has a disability; (2) the defendant’s facility is a place of public accommodation; and (3) he was denied full and equal treatment because of his disability on a particular occasion. (Martinez v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th Supp. 14, 18.)

Here, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant has violated the Unruh Civil Right Act by denying visually impaired customers like himself the services provided by the website. (Compl., ¶ 20.) Plaintiff also alleges that the website is a public accommodation. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Thus, the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Further, a plaintiff asserting an Unruh Act claim based on violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act need not prove intentional discrimination. (Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 672.) The ADA provides that: “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” (Coronado v. Cobblestone Village Community Rentals, L.P. (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 831, 848.) Because the plaintiff’s allegations also sufficiently allege a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination.

Based on the above, the demurrer is OVERRULED.