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

176-200 of 666 results

CHRIS LANGER VS HERIBERTO ROMERO, ET AL.

ANALYSIS: Background On August 3, 2019, Plaintiff Chris Langer (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against PVK Holdings, LLC and Heriberto Romero (“Romero”). Defendants have not yet filed an answer to the complaint, and Plaintiff has not submitted any proof of service demonstrating the Complaint has been served. On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to File First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, ET AL. VS XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, ET AL.

Further, xxxxxxxxx and TSM contend that following causes of action can only be brought by individual plaintiffs: Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Sexaul Harassment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. (Id.) On opposition, Plaintiffs contend that Santos Inc. is properly stated as a party asserting a claim for declaratory relief because Santos Inc. was a party to the written agreement signed by Santos. (Opposition, 9-10.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

GERALD CROSBY VS INNOVATE PASADENA, ET AL.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act states that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their…disability…are entitled to the full and equal accommodations advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 51(b).) A violation of any individual right under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act is also a violation under this section.” (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT LUPER VS BSN ENTERPRISES, INC.

ANALYSIS: On August 16, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Luper (“Plaintiff”) brought this action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant BSN Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant”). On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Amended the Complaint (the “Motion”). The Motion was twice continued by the Court prior to the hearing. Defendant filed an Opposition on October 24, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GINA MINERVINI VS CLARA SENECA, ET AL.

Plaintiff Gina Minervini commenced this action on December 27, 2018 against Defendants Clara Seneca, Jeff Hirschfeld, 1128 Euclid Street, LLC, Rachel Sene, and Jay Johnson for (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (2) violation of the Santa Monica Rent Control Law, Art. XVIII, Section 1806; (3) common law fraud; and (4) wrongful eviction. On July 9, 2019, dismissal was entered as to Defendants Jeff Hirschfeld and 1128 Euclid Street, LLC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

IN THE MATTER OF: GINA R., ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action (Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act) Defendants demur to the sixth cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action and that it is uncertain. (CCP § 430.10(e), (f).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ VS LIVE TALKS PRODUCTIONS, LLC, ET AL.

Background On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff Christopher Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Live Talks Productions, LLC (“Live Talks”), Saje, and PHR LA Mart, LLC (“PHR”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On March 29, 2019, PHR filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Saje was dismissed from this action on January 5, 2019, and PHR was dismissed on October 18, 2019. On May 6, 2019, default was entered against Live Talks.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA REYNA VS CORBIN COURT LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative complaint, filed September 23, 2019, alleges nine causes of action: (1) fraud by intentional misrepresentation, (2) “personal injuries based on negligence”, (3) retroactive rent abatement, (4) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (5) negligent maintenance, (6) “maintenance of nuisance,” (7) violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, (8) discrimination and violation of ADA, and (9) disability discrimination (Civil Code §§ 51, 52(a), 54.3, 55.56.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LIANNA SHAKHNAZARYAN VS MIRAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Bane Act, (12) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (14) battery.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DEL MAR ALLIANCE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BEACH ACCESS AND VILLAGE VS CITY OF DEL MAR [E-FILE]

County of Santa Clara (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 948, 953 (ordinance that prohibited discrimination already prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act and not subject to CEQA review); Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 974, 985 (adoption of updated housing element as part of general plan not subject to CEQA review to the extent it readopts existing policies without change). Whether a particular activity constitutes a project in the first instance is a question of law.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

DEL MAR ALLIANCE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BEACH ACCESS AND VILLAGE VS CITY OF DEL MAR [E-FILE]

County of Santa Clara (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 948, 953 (ordinance that prohibited discrimination already prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act and not subject to CEQA review); Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 974, 985 (adoption of updated housing element as part of general plan not subject to CEQA review to the extent it readopts existing policies without change). Whether a particular activity constitutes a project in the first instance is a question of law.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

BRIAN TRENT ADAMS VS BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In his SAC, Plaintiff presents a single cause of action for “Racial Discrimination By a State Entity,” containing three separate “counts”: • Count One: “Violation of Government Code § 11135, Prohibited Discrimination” (against Zarrinnam and Fritz only); • Count Two: “Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51), and § 52” (against Zarrinnam and Fritz only); and • Count Three: “Violation of Civil Code § 51, Unruh Civil Rights Act; and Civil Code § 52” (against all defendants).

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

M.F. VS. CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER

CVCHS argues it cannot be liable for a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act because, as a school, it is not a business establishment. The Court agrees. No California case directly answers the question whether a public school district or a charter school is a “business establishment”. There are federal-court decisions on the topic, but they are neither precedential, nor recent, nor particularly helpful.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

JANE DOE VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Defendant is really attacking the pleading for failure to state a cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 1708.85 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act[1]. However, a motion to strike may not be utilized as a demurrer: Preliminarily, we note a motion to strike is generally used to reach defects in a pleading which are not subject to demurrer. A motion to strike does not lie to attack a complaint for insufficiency of allegations to justify relief; that is a ground for general demurrer. (Warren v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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”).

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

KERRI K. AND JACOB K. VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

E. 7th Cause of Action – Unruh Civil Rights Act County Defendants demur to the seventh cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. They argue Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. As Plaintiffs point out in their Opposition, the IDEA exhaustion requirements do not apply to state claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 52 subd.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

JOHNSON V. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE CO.

The second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for race discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and there has been no indication that plaintiff can allege such facts after failing to do so three times. Defendant is to file an answer to the second amended complaint, that is, to the two remaining causes of action in the second amended complaint, within twenty (20) days of the date this order is served.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

DARNELL HINES VS AVIANO, LLC

ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Darnell Hines (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Aviano, LLC (“Defendant”) on January 23, 2019 alleging a single cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act as embodied in Civil Code section 51. On May 16, 2019, Defendant filed a demurrer as to Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e).

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

B SOSANYA VS MIHAIL BADICA, ET AL.

Discrimination: Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Sections 51 and 52 (6th Cause of Action) The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation in all business establishments. (Civ. Code § 51; Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GILBERT WAYNE HEDGPETH, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, ET AL.

On November 20, 2018, Plaintiffs brought the instant discrimination action against Defendants. The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges a single cause of action for Civ. Code § 51 et seq (Unruh Civil Rights Act). On August 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to change venue. The motion’s hearing date is currently set for February 19, 2020. On October 31, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motion to strike punitive damages. On November 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

WAILANI ROBLES VS DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT TWO, LLC, ET AL.

Third Cause of Action (Unruh Civil Rights Act). Although the Complaint alleges that Roger began yelling at Plaintiff and ordering him to leave the bathroom before seeing Plaintiff (¶ 15), Plaintiff alleges that he expressly told Roger that Plaintiff is disabled, a heart transplant recipient and has a medical condition and needed to finish using the bathroom because of that condition. ¶ 16.

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

DOE V. ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

As the Court noted, Civil Code section 51.9 is part of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (See Civ. Code, § 51.) The Unruh Act applies to business establishments. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (a).) The legislative history of the Unruh Civil Rights Act suggests that public entities mainly engaged in providing public services are not within the purview of the act. (Isbister v. Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz, Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 72, 79.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

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”).

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

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”).

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2019

ALEJO MENDEZ VS GEORGE BARDEKJIAN

ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Alejo Mendez (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendant George Bardekjian, as trustee of the Bardekjian Family Revocable Trust, (“Defendant”) for damages arising from Defendant’s alleged violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act in failing to maintain his parking lot with a van-accessible handicap parking spot and adjacent aisle. On February 15, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this action asserting a sole cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Section 51).

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.