What is discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act?

Useful Rulings on Discrimination – Unruh Civil Rights Act

Recent Rulings on Discrimination – Unruh Civil Rights Act

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Based on these allegations, Petitioners have asserted nine separate claims for relief, alleging: violations of the due process clauses of the California and United States Constitutions (claims 1 and 2); disability discrimination in violation of the Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Government Code section 11135 (claims 3, 4, and 5); a Bane Act claim (claim 6); “Violation of Mandatory Duty” (claim 7); violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (claim 8); entitlement to a writ of mandate pursuant

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

HA C. LU VS. LAURIE VAALA-OLSEN

Discussion To the extent Plaintiff is seeking damages for negligence, intentional tort, and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, he is required to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. “The procedural requirements for claim presentation are prerequisites to litigation against a local public entity or employee thereof based not only on tort liability, but on any claim for ‘money or damages.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Fifth Cause of Action: Violation of California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. “A plaintiff seeking to establish a case under the Unruh Civil Rights Act [Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.] must plead and prove intentional discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of the Act.” (Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 517–518.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHILLETTE BUSBY, ET AL. VS RICHARD VAUGHN, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for: 1) denial of civil rights; 2) disability discriminationUnruh Civil Rights Act; 3) breach of the warranty of habitability; 4) negligence; 5) unfair business practices; 6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; and 7) breach of contract. On July 8, 2019, the Court sustained the Vaughn Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint as to the first cause of action and granted their motion to strike with leave to amend as to punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CESAR COTTO VS JCDI INDUSTRIES LLC

.), for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to maintain and operate its website in a manner to accommodate persons who are legally impaired and/or blind. On February 3, 2020 Defendant served a statutory offer to compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 998 (“998”). Defendant’s 998 offered to pay Plaintiff: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CESAR COTTO VS JCDI INDUSTRIES LLC

.), for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to maintain and operate its website in a manner to accommodate persons who are legally impaired and/or blind. On February 3, 2020 Defendant served a statutory offer to compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 998 (“998”). Defendant’s 998 offered to pay Plaintiff: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ALEJO MENDEZ VS ROSALINDA DONATO

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on March 17, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None REPLY: None filed as of June 23, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None ANALYSIS: Background On December 17, 2019, Plaintiff Alejo Mendez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant Rosalinda Donato (“Defendant”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HILL VS. KAMALIAN

The complaint seeks punitive damages against Lyft only under the fourth cause of action for negligence and seventh cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act). (See Complaint, Prayer at ¶¶ 4c, 7c.) As alleged against Lyft, the fourth cause of action for negligence fails to state sufficient facts in support of punitive damages. (See Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (c); see also College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

: ok (motion to transfer venue denied 2/28/20) RELIEF REQUESTED: Strike the action CAUSES OF ACTION: From Complaint 1) Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Seventh Cause of Action (i.e., Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51.7) The essential factual elements of a cause of action for the violation of the Unruh Act are: (1) defendant denied, aided or incited a denial or, discriminated or made a distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to plaintiff; (2) that a motivating reason for defendant’s conduct was its perception of plaintiff’s sex, race, color, religion, ancestry,

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

PERLA MAGENO VS SOUTH PHILLY FOODS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

: ok (motion to transfer venue denied 2/28/20) RELIEF REQUESTED: Strike the action CAUSES OF ACTION: From Complaint 1) Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

AIDA OGANESIAN, ET AL. VS CAH-2014-1 BORROWER, LLC, ET AL.

(a); (9) Violation of FEHA § 12955, subd. (a), Failure to Engage in Interactive Process; and (10) Violation of Civil Code § 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act. PRESENTATION: Oganesian filed the instant motions on January 6, 2020. The original hearing date of all motions was March 20, 2020. Opposition to all three motions was filed on March 9, 2020. Reply to this opposition was filed on March 13, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ VS SCOTT LUHRS, ET AL.

Background On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff Christopher Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendants Scott Luhrs (“Luhrs”), Chateau Blanc, LLC (“Chateau”), and WhiteHouseEnterprises, LLC (“WhiteHouseEnterprises”). On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, substituting Tera L. White (“White”) for Doe 1.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BEATRIZ GUTIERREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint (SAC)[1] which asserts a single cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). The SAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person. Because of her visual impairment, Plaintiff requires screen-reading software to access and read website content on her computer. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Swatch produces, markets, and sells designer products and goods, such as watches. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 21.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RONALD VERDUGO VS CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD ET AL

On 9 July 20181, plaintiff Verdugo filed a complaint against defendants Cushman & Wakefield (“Cushman”), DTZ, Cassidy, and Facebook asserting causes of action for: (1) Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Section 51) Violation [versus Facebook] (2) Civil Code Section 52.1 Violation [versus Facebook] (3) Fraudulent Interference with Contractual Relations [versus Facebook] (4) Intentional Misrepresentation [versus Cushman, DTZ, and Cassidy] (5) Negligent Misrepresentation [versus Cushman, DTZ, and Cassidy] (6)

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2020

CILLEANA BRADLEY VS CHASE BANK, LLC, ET AL.

Seventh Cause of Action (i.e., Discrimination on the Basis of Race, National Origin, and/or Color) Plaintiff asserts a “race discrimination” claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”).

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ERIC WONG, ET AL. VS IDEAL PROPERTIES, INC, ET AL.

under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

KATHY HUGHES V. TARGET CORPORATION

On November 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Judicial Council Form TAC against defendant Target alleging causes of action for: (1) general negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On December 3, 2018, defendant Target filed its Answer alleging a general denial and various affirmative defenses.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

SHAWNTEE RICHARDSON VS MARY BENNETT, ET AL.

.: 19CMCV00139 Matter on calendar for: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Tentative ruling: Background This is a housing discrimination action. Plaintiff Shawntee Richardson alleges that Defendants Mary Bennett and Michael Bennett violated various provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and eviction laws. The Complaint also contains allegations of assault and sexual assault. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Housing Discrimination [Civ.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZHOIE PEREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS EDDUIN ZELAYA GRUNFELD, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Issue No. 6: Sixth Cause of Action “The Unruh Civil Rights Act was enacted to create and preserve nondiscriminatory environment in California business establishments by banishing or eradicating arbitrary, invidious discrimination by such establishments.” (Flowers v. Prasad (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 930, 937.) “The substantive protections against discrimination established by the Unruh Civil Rights Act are set forth in Civil Code section 51.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MATTEO WILLIAMS VS PETITE TAQUERIA, ET AL.

Such claims include, but are not limited to, any federal state, or local statutory claims (including but not limited to those under . . . the California Constitution, the California Family/Medical Leave Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Health and Safety Code, and all applicable amendments and regulations thereof); whistleblower or retaliation claims of any kind; for unpaid wages or overtime; discrimination

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

O.J. VS SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL

Defendants SSMUSD and Cronrod move for summary judgment, arguing no facts support the causes of action for defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, negligence, violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, negligent training and supervision and respondeat superior. In the alternative, defendants seek summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

JAMES RODRIGUEZ VS DUQUESNE PROPERTIES, LLC

ANALYSIS: Background & Discussion On March 14, 2018, Plaintiff James Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant Duquesne Properties, LLC (“Defendant”). On May 18, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer. On August 13, 2019, the Court entered a Judgment in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to the parties’ stipulation in the amount of $4,001.00. (8/13/19 Judgment.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CANDY LOPEZ VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC ET AL

Lastly, Teft contends that the cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act fails because it only protects nonemployees against discrimination by a business establishment. ((See Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 77 [noting that the Unruh Act has “no application to employment discrimination”].) Here, Quon’s allegations of discrimination against UPS (and by extension, Teft) stem from his status as an employee. Therefore, the Unruh Act does not apply.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JOSE MANZO VS THOMAS ANDERSON

Background On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Manzo (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for damages for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On July 16, 2019, Defendant filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint with a Motion to Strike. On August 20, 2019, the Court overruled Defendant’s Demurrer and denied the Motion to Strike. (8/20/19 Minute Order.) On September 4, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.