What is discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act?

Useful Resources for Discrimination – Unruh Civil Rights Act

Recent Rulings on Discrimination – Unruh Civil Rights Act

626-650 of 665 results

RANDALL VS DITECH FINANCIAL LLC

As to the First Cause of Action for Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, plaintiff fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiff has failed to state an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim because he does not adequately allege intentional discrimination. Given that Defendant rescinded the August 6, 2014 NOD after the default was cured, there is no claim of discrimination. (See RJN, Exh. D.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2016

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY D. EVERHARD V. ISLA VISTA FOOD CO-OP, INC., ET AL.

But the cause of action purports to be brought under several statutes unrelated to service dogs, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51), Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1), Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51.7), and Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”). Defendants start out by saying this cause of action “is so deficient that it is not even possible to determine the cause of action itself. The cause of action is fatally uncertain.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2016

DYNAMIC WORLDWIDE WEST INC ET AL VS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

In Magpali, the Second District affirmed a trial court’s granting of nonsuit and denial of plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to add a discrimination claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act to an employment action alleging breach of contract, fraud and IIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KEVIN ROBERTS VS T MOBILE USA INC ET AL

In Magpali, the Second District affirmed a trial court’s granting of nonsuit and denial of plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to add a discrimination claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act to an employment action alleging breach of contract, fraud and IIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT IRISH ET AL VS MAGNUSSEN HOME FURNISHINGS INC ET AL

Plaintiff alleges (1) wrongful termination, (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (3) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, (4) age discrimination, (5) failure to pay earned incentive commission compensation, (6) accounting, (7) intentional interference with contractual relations, (8) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (9) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and (10) defamation.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALLAN PU VS. RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY LLC

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot seek punitive damages in his first cause of action for the violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) because the statute authorizes him to obtain a statutory penalty, which is treble damages under Civil Code section 52(a). Enacted in 1959, the Unruh Act secures equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LANCE GANN VS GUITAR CENTER INC

Trial was set for March 11, 1994, but Magpali informed defendants on March 8, 1994 that he intended to amend his complaint to bring a new claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and filed his motion on March 10, 1994.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WADDELL V. WALT DISNEY PARKS & RESORTS U.S., INC.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her physical disability by denying her the right to be accompanied by her service dog, in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act. However, CC 54.1 (b)(6)(C)(iii) expressly defines a service dog as “any dog individually trained to the requirements of the individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, minimal protection work, rescue work, pulling in a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2016

LIFESOURCE WATER SYSTEMS VS JAMES MCMAHON

In Magpali, the Second District affirmed a trial court’s granting of nonsuit and denial of plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to add a discrimination claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act to an employment action alleging breach of contract, fraud and IIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LARISSA ANDERSON VS BIKRAM CHOUDHURY ET AL

Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Choudhury and Yoga College (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) sexual battery, (2) gender violence, (3) Unruh Civil Rights Act sex discrimination, (4) Unruh Civil Rights Act sex harassment, (5) violation of the Ralph Act, (6) violation of the Bane Act, (7) fraud, (8) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

MEGA ACCESS CONTROLS INC VS CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY ET

Thirteenth Cause of Action – Unruh Civil Rights Act The thirteenth cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act is asserted by Cross-Complainant Link.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2016

ALEXANDER JOHNSON VS MUSHTAG AHMAD

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 2/20/14 for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from hearing loss and defendants failed and refused to provide him with a telecommunications device for deaf persons. At the Case Management Hearing on August 18, 2014, plaintiff’s counsel informed the court that default had been entered against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2016

FERNANDO ROLDAN VS BURBANK WHITSETT PLAZA LLC ET AL

.; (2) violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act [Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.]; and (3) violations of Title Ill of the Americans with Disabilities Act [42 U.S.C., § 12181 et seq.]. DISCUSSION In this unopposed motion, Plaintiff requests leave to file a proposed Supplemental First Amended Complaint (“SFAC”), which would reflect statutory violations subsequent to the commencement of this lawsuit.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2016

IMOGENE HANNAH VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA

First Cause of Action – Unruh Civil Rights Act The elements for an Unruh Civil Rights Act cause of action are as follows: (1) Defendant was a business establishment; (2) Defendant intentionally denied plaintiff (a) full and equal accommodations; (b) advantages; (c) facilities; (d) privileges; or (e) services; (3) based upon Plaintiff’s sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or orientation.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WARREN VAN NESS VS. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Civil Code §51(t) of the Unruh Civil Rights Act states that “a violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall also constitute a violation of this section.” Civil Code §52 (a) creates a private right of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2016

SAID VS UC IRVINE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE ADMINISTRATION

Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 3. Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act 4. Violation of Civil Code Section 51.5 5. Violation of the 1st Amendment of U.S. Constitution: Free Speech 6. Violation of Plaintiff’s Right to Free Speech under the California Constitution Art. I, Section 2A 7. Invasion of Privacy: Violation of Art. I, Section 1 of the California Constitution 8.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2016

CASTILLO-ANTONIO VS TAN

These statutes include (1) The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code 51, subd. (b)), which prohibits business establishments from discriminating on the basis of disability, and (2) the general personal injury statute (Code Civ. Proc. 335.1). Both of these statutes are subject to a two-year statute of limitations period. (See Gatto v. City of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 754-760 [decided under former Code Civ. Proc. § 340(3) when statute of limitations for personal injury actions was one year].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2016

LARISSA ANDERSON VS BIKRAM CHOUDHURY ET AL

Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Choudhury and Yoga College (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) sexual battery, (2) gender violence, (3) Unruh Civil Rights Act sex discrimination, (4) Unruh Civil Rights Act sex harassment, (5) violation of the Ralph Act, (6) violation of the Bane Act, (7) fraud, (8) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2016

ELAINE KAY VS RICHARD LAVER ET AL

Seven of the defenses are for discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Gov. Code §12940 et seq.), discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code §51), breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, trespass, breach of lease, waiver, and estoppel. With regard to the waiver and estoppel arguments, defendants contend that plaintiff knew about the business use from the outset, yet she continued to accept rent for the cottage. (R. Laver Decl., ¶37.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2016

MICHELLE G JOHNSON VS. MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA

The Unruh Civil Rights Act CC 51.9, provides, in pertinent part: "(a) A person is liable in a cause of action for sexual harassment under this section when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements: (1) There is a business, service, or professional relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. Such a relationship may exist between a plaintiff and a person, including, but not limited to, any of the following persons: ... (D) Landlord or property manager. ...

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2015

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHERYL SHANKS VS. WALGREEN CO. ET AL

As to the Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and Ralph Civil Rights Act causes of action, Defendants met their initial burden of presenting evidence that the employees' conduct was not motivated by race. The evidence submitted by Defendants establishes that the employees only began to watch Plaintiff after another employee witnessed Plaintiff put merchandise in her bag and the employees only attempted to restrain Plaintiff until she began to act aggressively.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2015

LOUISE FRADENBURG VS UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY ET

) (1) Numerous, Ascertainable Class Fradenburg seeks to certify a class for purposes of her first cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (UCL), and a subclass for purposes of her second cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, � 51 et seq.).

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2014

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ARVAN WASHINGTON VS BILL BROWN ET AL

[FAC ¶ 10] Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: 1) violation of ADA, 2) violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), and 3) violation of California Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”). Service: Defendant Brown has filed a demurrer in his individual capacity. His counsel indicates he has not been served in his official capacity and the Sheriff’s Department has not been served.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2014

ARVAN WASHINGTON VS BILL BROWN ET AL

Plaintiff has sued defendants Sheriff Bill Brown (“Sheriff Brown”) and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department (“County”) for general negligence and intentional tort, and for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12102), the California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code §54), and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code §51).

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2013

LOUISE FRADENBURG VS UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY ET

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Compel Further Testimony Concerning Plaintiff's Clinical Treatment; Motion: File Certain Documents Under Seal Background: This is a purported class action for alleged violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) [B&P Code §17200 et seq.] and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) [Civil Code §51 et seq.]. In her first amended complaint [FAC], plaintiff Louise Fradenburg alleges as follows: Plaintiff is an employee of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2013

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

  « first    1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.