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

JANE JB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Civil Code section 52, part of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, allows for a party to recover attorney’s fees in connection with certain claims for discrimination in public accommodations. Finally, Civil Code section 52.4 allows a person who has been subject to “gender violence” to bring a civil action and, further, permits a prevailing party to be awarded attorney fees.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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: Defendants filed all three motions on October 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to all motions on November 06, 2020, and Defendants filed replies to all motions on November 12, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BEDFORD, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

[2] The complaint contained a second cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act pursuant to Civil Code section 51, et seq. The trial court sustained the demurrer to that cause of action, and the appellate court affirmed. (Id. at p. 741.) The appellate court’s discussion is omitted as it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

  • Hearing

JANE JG DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Civil Code section 52, part of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, allows for a party to recover attorney fees in connection with certain claims for discrimination in public accommodations. Finally, Civil Code section 52.4 allows a person who has been subject to “gender violence” to bring a civil action and, further, permits a prevailing party to be awarded attorney fees.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JULIO MARTINEZ VS ELIGIO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

Based on the attorney fees provision in the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the statute under which this action was brought, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees for his successful appeal. (Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VEGA VS. MANOR CARE

Prayer ¶ 7, asserting injunctive relief under Unruh Civil Rights Act), under Health & Safety Code § 1430(b), plaintiff is also alleging a right to attorneys' fees and costs if she proves Manor Care committed the regulatory violations plaintiff alleges other than understaffing and misrepresentations regarding the quality of care.

  • Hearing

STAMATIS STAMATOPOULOS VS ALEX YAMINI, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, (2) wrongful eviction, (3) offering withdrawn rental units for rent within two years of withdrawal under the Ellis Act, (4) fraud, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) financial elder abuse. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. In 1977, Plaintiff moved into an apartment located at 12337 Gorham Avenue, Los Angeles, California (Apartment). The Apartment is one of two units on the property (Property).

  • Hearing

STROJNIK V. SASHI GROUP LLC, ET AL.

On July 24, 2020, in propria persona plaintiff Peter Strojnik (“Plaintiff”) filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against defendants DeAnza Family, L.P. dba The Nest Palo Alto (“DeAnza”), Palmetto Hospitality of Palo Alto, LLC dba Hilton Garden Inn (“Palmetto”), SHR Palo Alto, LLC dba Four Seasons (“SHR”), and International Hotel Associates No. 3 dba Creekside Inn—A Greystone Hotel (“IHA”) (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for: 1) Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ.

  • Hearing

NONI A NWASIKE VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA KECK HOSPITAL, ET AL.

Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act (2nd COA) The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §51(b), provides as follows: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, … are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

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: Filed on June 24, 2020 [X] Late [ ] 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

WILLIAM TUTTON, ET AL. VS SUSAN K BALMFORTH

Demurrer First Cause of Action: Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act Defendant contends that the first cause of action fails because (1) the age discrimination claim arbitrarily picks the age forty, and (2) rent-controlled tenants are not a protected category.[1] “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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSEPH MORRISSEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND DOES 1-10

The City also fails to provide accommodations for people with disabilities, like Morrissey, by, among other things, failing to provide additional time for disabled persons to navigate the administrative hearing process in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Disabled Persons Act. Due to the City’s unlawful conduct, disabled persons are less likely to receive an administrative hearing to contest the citation, tow, and sale of their vehicles.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LARAE RANSOM, ET AL. VS LA PRO II PRESERVATION, L.P.

., and Preservation Partners Management Group, Inc. for (1) housing discrimination (Gov. Code § 12955(a)); (2) retaliation for reporting housing discrimination (Gov. Code § 12955(f)); (3) housing discrimination (Gov. Code § 12955(k)); (4) Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code § 51); (5) violation of warranty of habitability (Civ. Code § 1941.1); (6) retaliation (Civ. Code § 1942.5); (7) breach of contract; (8) negligence; and (9) Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JENELL CONTRERAS, ET AL. VS JON PEARSON, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Negligence; Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act (pursuant to Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.); and Violation of Bane Act (pursuant to Civil Code §§ 52 et seq.).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ANNA NEAL NEGRETE VS BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arising from Plaintiff dining at a Chili’s restaurant, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) civil extortion; (4) conspiracy to commit civil extortion; (5) aiding and abetting civil extortion; (6) false imprisonment; (7) product liability—negligence; and (8) product liability—strict liability—failure to warn.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JENELL CONTRERAS, ET AL. VS JON PEARSON, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Negligence; Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act – Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.; and Violation of Bane Act – Civil Code §§ 52, et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JOLIE PARRIS, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM JENNELL MAZE VS SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

First Cause of Action: Violation of Civil Code sections 51, 51.7, 52, and 52.1 The elements of a claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act under Civil Code section 51 are (1) defendant is a business establishment, (2) defendant intentionally denied plaintiff accommodations, advantages, privileges, facilities or services, (3) defendant was motivated to do so based on its perception that plaintiff belonged to a statutorily defined group, (4) plaintiff was harmed, and (5) defendant’s conduct was a substantial

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

GENERNAL LOGISTICS SYSTEM US, INC. VS ARNEL SINSAY, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Negligence; Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act – Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.; and Violation of Bane Act – Civil Code §§ 52, et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALFRED ANYIA, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Infliction of Emotional Distress against Defendants LAPD and the City; (11) Promissory Estoppel against Defendants LAPD and the City; (12) DiscriminationViolation of Unruh Civil Rights Act; (13) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against John Does 1-4; and (14) Monell Claims – Violations of 42 U.S.C.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ERIC DEVEZIN VS CHUCK DORFMAN, ET AL.

Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act; 2. Unlawful Housing; 3. Discrimination; 4. Violation of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968; 5. Failure to Maintain Rental Housing in a Manner Fit for Occupation in Violation of Civil Code § 1941 and 1942.4; 6. Breach of Warranty of Habitability; 7. Nuisance; 8. Negligence; and 9. Violation of 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants Vere Enterprises, Inc. dba Re/Max of Valencia and Randal Lewis Plaice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

BARRY KELLMAN VS TITLE RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

Background On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants and other named defendants for (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (2) wrongful eviction; (3) offering withdrawn rental units for rent within two years of withdrawal under the Ellis Act; (4) fraud; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. The case was originally set in Department 20, before the Honorable Dalila Corral Lyons.

  • Hearing

PRASAD, RAJENDRA RAYMOND

(a) With regard to the First Cause of Action, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to allege facts supporting the existence of intentional discrimination by Defendant, which is required in order to state a claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. With regard to the Second and Third Causes of Action based on allegations of negligence, the Complaint fails to identify the statutory basis for Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant, as a public entity, can be held liable in this context.

  • Hearing

SAMMY ZABLEN VS ITS REMODELING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Demurrer Analysis: Third Cause of action: Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act California Civil Code § 51 (The Unruh Civil Rights Act) prohibits discrimination by business establishments based on certain characteristics, including race. In Re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 216.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he was being prevented from accessing Defendant’s website due to his visual impairment, in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code, Section 51 et seq. (the “Unruh Act”). Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication (the “Motion”), the notice of which seeks “injunctive relief, statutory damages, fees, and costs of suit.” (Notice of Motion at 2:7-8.)

  • Hearing

CESAR COTTO VS HAPPY RODEO, INC.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he was being prevented from accessing Defendant’s website due to his visual impairment, in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code, Section 51 et seq. (the “Unruh Act”). Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication (the “Motion”), the notice of which seeks “injunctive relief, statutory damages, fees, and costs of suit.” (Notice of Motion at 2:7-8.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.