This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/10/2021 at 00:48:35 (UTC).

BRIAN WHITAKER VS BRAND BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6534

  • Filing Date:

    08/05/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

WHITAKER BRIAN

BRAND BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES LP

Defendants

UNITED LIONS MANAGEMENT GROUP A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

BRAND BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES L.P. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

SESAM CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BALLISTER RAYMOND G. JR.

VENTO ARIEL ELIZABETH

Defendant Attorney

SWAN ANGELA

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

8/18/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Notice (name extension) - Notice Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

8/18/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice of Appearance - Notice of Appearance

8/18/2021: Notice of Appearance - Notice of Appearance

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/19/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Answer - Answer

3/11/2021: Answer - Answer

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

1/26/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Notice (name extension) - Notice Non-Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer

1/26/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Non-Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Demurrer

1/28/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Demurrer

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

1/29/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

10/27/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

10/27/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/12/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

9/11/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

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

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/5/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

8/5/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

8/5/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/09/2023
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2022
  • Hearing02/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2021
  • Hearing11/09/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 11/09/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2021
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2021
  • DocketNotice Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2021
  • DocketNotice of Appearance; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 08/17/2020
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS - RAYMOND G BALLISTER JR