On 08/05/2020 BRIAN WHITAKER filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against BRAND BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES, L P , A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******6534
08/05/2020
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
WHITAKER BRIAN
BRAND BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES LP
UNITED LIONS MANAGEMENT GROUP A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
BRAND BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES L.P. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
SESAM CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
BALLISTER RAYMOND G. JR.
SWAN ANGELA
1/26/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
1/26/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Non-Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer
1/28/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Demurrer
1/29/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
2/10/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
10/27/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
10/27/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
11/12/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
9/11/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
8/17/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
8/17/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
8/5/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
8/5/2020: Complaint - Complaint
8/5/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint
8/5/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
8/5/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearing08/09/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing02/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 02/11/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 02/10/2021
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 02/10/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/10/2021; Result Type to Held
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Defendant)
DocketOpposition to Demurrer; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice Non-Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer; Filed by: Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Sesam Corporation, a California Corporation (Defendant); United Lions, Management Group, a California Corporation (Defendant); As to: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Sesam Corporation, a California Corporation (Defendant); United Lions, Management Group, a California Corporation (Defendant); As to: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); As to: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 08/12/2020; Service Cost: 30.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Sesam Corporation, a California Corporation (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 08/12/2020; Service Cost: 30.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Sesam Corporation, a California Corporation (Defendant); United Lions, Management Group, a California Corporation (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Sesam Corporation, a California Corporation (Defendant); United Lions, Management Group, a California Corporation (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Sesam Corporation, a California Corporation (Defendant); United Lions, Management Group, a California Corporation (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/09/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse
Case Number: 20STLC06534 Hearing Date: February 11, 2021 Dept: 26
Whitaker v. Brand Boulevard Associates, LP, et al.
DEMURRER
(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Brand Boulevard Associates LP, Sesan Corporation and United Lions Management Group’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE THEIR ANSWER WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Duplicative hearing on demurrer set for February 11, 2021 is advanced to this date and vacated.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendants Brand Boulevard Associates LP, Sesan Corporation and United Lions Management Group (“Defendants”) on August 5, 2020. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On October 27, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 28, 2021.
Discussion
The Demurrer is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Defendants are admonished for failing to comply with the statutory requirements and warned that future failures to meet and confer as required may result in the demurrer being placed off calendar until such compliance is shown.
Defendants demur to the Complaint for failure to allege facts insufficient to state a cause of action. The Court disregards Defendants’ arguments that raise facts outside of the pleadings. It has long been settled that a demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or that appear from matters that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court likewise disregards Defendants’ arguments regarding the number of lawsuits Plaintiff has filed, as this has no bearing on the sufficiency of the allegations in the instant Complaint.
The elements of a claim for violation of the Unruh Act are that: (1) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Defendant owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation; (3) the place of public accommodation was in violation of one or more construction-related accessibility standards; (4) the violations denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the place of public accommodation; (5) the violations were personally encountered by Plaintiff on a particular occasion; (6) Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment due to the violations; and (7) the discrimination was intentional unless premised exclusively upon a violation of the ADA. (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56; Mundy v. Pro-Thro Enterprises (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1; Surrey v. TrueBeginnings (2009) 168 Cal.App.4th 414.)
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a physically disabled individual who visited Defendants’ restaurant, The Famous, at 154 S. Brand Blvd., Glendale, California in November 2019. (Id. at ¶¶1, 3-6.) At the time of his visit, Plaintiff alleges the Famous failed to provide wheelchair accessible dining surfaces and bathrooms in conformance with the ADA Standards. (Id. at ¶¶8-12.) Plaintiff alleges that because he encountered these accessibility barriers, he was denied full and fair access to Defendants’ restaurant store. (Id. at ¶¶13-14.) Plaintiff also alleges he experienced difficulty and discomfort due to these accessibility barriers. (Id. at ¶15.) These allegations are sufficient to state a violation of the Unruh Act. It is not necessary for Plaintiff to allege evidentiary facts; California law only requires the pleading of ultimate facts as Plaintiff has done here. (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1098.)
Conclusion
Defendants Brand Boulevard Associates LP, Sesan Corporation, and United Lions Management Group’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE THEIR ANSWER WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Duplicative hearing on demurrer set for February 11, 2021 is advanced to this date and vacated.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Case Number: 20STLC06534 Hearing Date: February 10, 2021 Dept: 26
DEMURRER
(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Brand Boulevard Associates LP, Sesan Corporation and United Lions Management Group’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE THEIR ANSWER WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Duplicative hearing on demurrer set for February 11, 2021 is advanced to this date and vacated.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendants Brand Boulevard Associates LP, Sesan Corporation and United Lions Management Group (“Defendants”) on August 5, 2020. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On October 27, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 28, 2021.
Discussion
The Demurrer is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Defendants are admonished for failing to comply with the statutory requirements and warned that future failures to meet and confer as required may result in the demurrer being placed off calendar until such compliance is shown.
Defendants demur to the Complaint for failure to allege facts insufficient to state a cause of action. The Court disregards Defendants’ arguments that raise facts outside of the pleadings. It has long been settled that a demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or that appear from matters that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court likewise disregards Defendants’ arguments regarding the number of lawsuits Plaintiff has filed, as this has no bearing on the sufficiency of the allegations in the instant Complaint.
The elements of a claim for violation of the Unruh Act are that: (1) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Defendant owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation; (3) the place of public accommodation was in violation of one or more construction-related accessibility standards; (4) the violations denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the place of public accommodation; (5) the violations were personally encountered by Plaintiff on a particular occasion; (6) Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment due to the violations; and (7) the discrimination was intentional unless premised exclusively upon a violation of the ADA. (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56; Mundy v. Pro-Thro Enterprises (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1; Surrey v. TrueBeginnings (2009) 168 Cal.App.4th 414.)
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a physically disabled individual who visited Defendants’ restaurant, The Famous, at 154 S. Brand Blvd., Glendale, California in November 2019. (Id. at ¶¶1, 3-6.) At the time of his visit, Plaintiff alleges the Famous failed to provide wheelchair accessible dining surfaces and bathrooms in conformance with the ADA Standards. (Id. at ¶¶8-12.) Plaintiff alleges he encountered these accessibility barriers and as a result was denied full and fair access to Defendant’s store. (Id. at ¶¶13-14.) Plaintiff also alleged he experienced difficulty and discomfort due to these accessibility barriers. (Id. at ¶15.) These allegations are sufficient to state a violation of the Unruh Act. It is not necessary for Plaintiff to allege evidentiary facts; California law only requires the pleading of ultimate facts as Plaintiff has done here. (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1098.)
Conclusion
Defendants Brand Boulevard Associates LP, Sesan Corporation, and United Lions Management Group’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE THEIR ANSWER WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Duplicative hearing on demurrer set for February 11, 2021 is advanced to this date and vacated.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases