This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/06/2021 at 01:02:08 (UTC).

BRIAN WHITAKER VS KAJIMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/09/2020 BRIAN WHITAKER filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against KAJIMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2281

  • Filing Date:

    03/09/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WHITAKER BRIAN

Defendants

KAJIMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION

KOOJUICE INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

HANDY RUSSELL

Defendant Attorney

ABRAHAM STEPHEN E

 

Court Documents

Witness List - Witness List

10/1/2021: Witness List - Witness List

Trial Brief - Trial Brief

10/1/2021: Trial Brief - Trial Brief

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation and Proposed Order to Continue Trial

8/27/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation and Proposed Order to Continue Trial

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

7/19/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 07/19/2021

7/19/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 07/19/2021

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration and Exhibits

12/23/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration and Exhibits

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

12/23/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

12/23/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

2/18/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

2/18/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

Response (name extension) - Response to Defendants Separate Statement

3/3/2021: Response (name extension) - Response to Defendants Separate Statement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

3/10/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Request (name extension) - Request to Continue Hearing Date On Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment; Declaration Of Isabel Rose Masanque; Proposed Order

5/12/2021: Request (name extension) - Request to Continue Hearing Date On Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment; Declaration Of Isabel Rose Masanque; Proposed Order

Answer - Answer

4/9/2020: Answer - Answer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

3/18/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

3/19/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3/9/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/9/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/06/2021
  • Hearing10/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketTrial Brief; Filed by: Kajima Development Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); Koojuice, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketTrial Brief; Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketStipulation - No Order of Facts; Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketWitness List; Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order Stipulation to continue trial; Signed and Filed by: Kajima Development Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); Koojuice, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant); As to: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 10/06/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/13/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/27/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Party was rescheduled to 09/29/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 03/19/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff); As to: Koojuice, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant); Service Date: 03/11/2020; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff); As to: Koojuice, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant); Service Date: 03/11/2020; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/13/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff); As to: Kajima Development Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); Koojuice, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff); As to: Kajima Development Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); Koojuice, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: BRIAN WHITAKER (Plaintiff); As to: Kajima Development Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); Koojuice, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC02281 Hearing Date: July 19, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nBrian Whitaker

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Kajima Development\r\nCorporation and Koojuice, Inc.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 437c)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker’s Motion for\r\nSummary Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service Timely\r\nFiled (CRC 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013,\r\n1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c\r\nand 1005 (b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 18,\r\n2021 [ ]\r\nLate [ ] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: Filed on March\r\n3, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n& Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”)\r\nfiled a verified Complaint alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act\r\nagainst Defendant Kajima Development Corporation (“Kajima”) and Koojuice, Inc.\r\n(“Koojuice”). Defendants filed their Answer on April 9, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion\r\nfor Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). Defendants filed an Opposition on February\r\n18, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on March 3.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s counsel was present at the initial March 10\r\nhearing and submitted to the Court’s tentative ruling, but Defendants and their\r\ncounsel did not appear. (3/10/21 Minute Order.) At the hearing, the Court noted\r\nthat the parties disagreed on whether Plaintiff presented himself to the\r\nsubject Restaurant. (Id.) The Court\r\nfound it was not clear whether Plaintiff sufficiently presented himself to the\r\nbusiness to have been denied access, as Plaintiff only stated that he “went” to\r\nthe subject Restaurant but did not describe what his visit entailed (i.e.,\r\nattempting to order, etc.). (Id.) As a result, the Court requested\r\nadditional briefing regarding what it means for a plaintiff to sufficiently\r\npresent himself or herself to a business under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Id.) The hearing was continued to May\r\n13, 2021. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 12, Plaintiff filed a request to continue the\r\nhearing on the Motion because, due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s error, Defendants\r\nhad not been given notice of the March 10 Minute Order. (5/12/21 Request to\r\nContinue Hearing.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and continued the\r\nhearing to July 19, 2021. (5/12/21 Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To date, neither party has filed any supplemental briefs\r\nas requested. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nBrian Whitaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

\r\n\r\n

'

Case Number: 20STLC02281    Hearing Date: May 13, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Brian Whitaker

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Kajima Development Corporation and Koojuice, Inc.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 18, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on March 3, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background & Discussion

On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified Complaint alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant Kajima Development Corporation (“Kajima”) and Koojuice, Inc. (“Koojuice”). Defendants filed their Answer on April 9, 2020.

On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). Defendants filed an Opposition on February 18, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on March 3.

Plaintiff’s counsel was present at the initial March 10 hearing and submitted to the Court’s tentative ruling, but Defendants and their counsel did not appear. (3/10/21 Minute Order.) At the hearing, the Court noted that the parties disagreed on whether Plaintiff presented himself to the subject Restaurant. (Id.) The Court found it was not clear whether Plaintiff sufficiently presented himself to the business to have been denied access, as Plaintiff only stated that he “went” to the subject Restaurant but did not describe what his visit entailed (i.e., attempting to order, etc.). (Id.) As a result, the Court requested additional briefing regarding what it means for a plaintiff to sufficiently present himself or herself to a business under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Id.)

Neither party filed any supplemental briefs as requested. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

II. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Brian Whitaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC02281    Hearing Date: March 10, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., March 10, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Whitaker v. Kajima Development Corporation, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02281 COMPL. FILED: 03-09-20

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 08-08-21

DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-23-21

TRIAL DATE: 09-07-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Brian Whitaker

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Kajima Development Corporation and Koojuice, Inc.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED TO MAY 13, 2021at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 10 days before the next scheduled hearing, the parties must file and serve a supplemental brief as requested herein.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on March 23, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on August 13, 2020 [X] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified Complaint for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant Kajima Development Corporation (“Kajima”) and Koojuice, Inc. (“Koojuice”). Defendants filed their Answer on April 9, 2020.

On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). Defendants filed an Opposition on February 18, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on March 3.

  1. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

  1. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the docket report for the federal action filed by Plaintiff in Whitaker v. Kajima Development Corp., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv05589-DMG-GJS. (Mot., RJN, Exh. 8.) The request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

  1. Discussion

Civil Code section 51 subdivision (b) 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.” A violation of any individual right under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is also a violation of California’s Unruh Act. (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (f).) Under the ADA, “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).) A place of public accommodation includes establishments that serve food or drink. (42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(B).) Under the ADA, discrimination includes “a failure to remove architectural barriers…, in existing facilities…, where such removal is readily achievable.” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).)

Statutory penalties are available for construction-related accessibility violations of the Unruh Act if a patron is denied full and equal access to the place of public accommodation on a particular occasion. (Cal. Civ. Code, § 55.56, subd. (a).) A denial of full and equal access to the place of public accommodation occurs when a patron experiences difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment due to the violation. (Cal. Civ. Code, § 55.56, subd. (c).) Failure to remove a physical element of the property that does not meet the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (“ADAAG”) amounts to discrimination under the ADA. (42 U.S.C., § 12182, subd. (b)(2)(A)(iv).) Any barrier that does not meet the standards set forth in the ADAAG is considered a barrier to access. (Skaff v. Rio Nido Roadhouse (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 522, 534.) Under the ADAAGs, facilities must provide a toe clearance depth of a minimum of 17 inches and a maximum of 25 inches and must provide a toe clearance width of a minimum of 30 inches. (36 C.F.R. § Pt. 1191, App. D.)

Thus, 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; and (6) Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment due to the violations. (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.) Intentional discrimination need not be proved to obtain damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act when the plaintiff establishes a violation of the ADA. (Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 665.)

B. Plaintiff’s Burden

The following facts are undisputed: (1) Plaintiff suffers from a C-4 spinal injury which substantially limits his ability to walk and uses a wheelchair for mobility; (2) Defendant Kajima owns the real property located at 134 Astronaut Ellison D. Ozizuko, Los Angeles, CA (the “Property”); and (3) that Defendant Koojuice operates Acai Hero (the “Restaurant”) at the Property. (UMF Nos. 1-3.)

Plaintiff provides his declaration stating that on June 16, 2019, Plaintiff went to the Restaurant to get something to eat. (MSJ, Whitaker Decl., ¶ 3.) He states that on the date of his visit, he observed dining tables outside of the restaurant where customers could sit and eat. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also states that he noticed the outside dining tables did not have enough toe clearance for someone in a wheelchair because of the style of legs underneath the table. (Id. at ¶ 6.) He further states that, had he tried to sit at one of the tables, he would find himself unable to wheel himself close enough because the table legs would get in his way. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff states that “[t]he thought of having to deal with the inaccessible tables caused [him] great difficulty and discomfort because [he] knew that it would not go well,” so he “decided against putting [him]self in that embarrassing situation” but was frustrated by having to find a different place to eat. (Id.) Plaintiff’s declaration includes several pictures of the tables taken on the date of his visit. (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. 2.)

Plaintiff also presents the declaration of Evens Louis, an investigator, who visited the Restaurant on June 24, 2019. (MSJ, Louis Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) Louis declares that, on the date of his visit, he observed a single dining table outside the restaurant and includes a photograph of said table. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. 4.) He measured the toe clearance of the dining table to be approximately four (4) inches. (Id.) As noted above, under the ADAAGs, accessible dining tables must provide a toe clearance depth of a minimum of 17 inches and a maximum of 25 inches. (36 C.F.R. § Pt. 1191, App. D.) In July 2019, Defendant Koojuice replaced one of the two outdoor dining tables with an accessible one. (Def. UMF No. 1.)

The parties disagree on whether Plaintiff presented himself to the Restaurant. Plaintiff’s declaration only states that he “went” to the restaurant on June 16, 2019. (MSJ, Whitaker Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.) In general, a person must “present himself or herself to a business or public place with the intent of purchasing its products or utilizing it services in the manner in which those products and/or services are typically offered to the public” and the plaintiff must prove he or she “was actually denied equal access on a particular occasion.” (Reycraft v. Lee (2009) 177 Cal.4th 1211, 1224.)

Defendants argue that because Plaintiff did not go inside the Restaurant, did not attempt to purchase anything, and did not return to the Restaurant once the barrier was removed, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a true intent to patronize the business and did not present himself to the business. (Oppo., pp. 9:21-10:14.) In Reply, Plaintiff agues he was not required purchase anything, that he sufficiently presented himself to the Restaurant, and that this Court should reject Defendants’ arguments for the same reason the California Supreme Court rejected similar arguments in Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160 and White v. Square, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1019. (Reply, pp. 5:22-7:3.) However, the Angelucci and White cases are distinguishable.

In Angelucci, the male plaintiffs presented themselves to the business, paid an admission fee on several occasions that was higher than the admission fee charged to women, and then sought damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act for unequal treatment. (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 165.) In White, a bankruptcy attorney intended to sign up for and use the defendant’s online services, but the terms for use of defendant’s services explicitly excluded users like plaintiff. (White v. Square, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1024.) Specifically, the terms of use for defendant’s services stated the services should not be used to engage with bankruptcy attorneys or other agencies engaged in the collection of debt. (Id.) These cases are not sufficiently analogous to the instant action.

It is not clear to the Court that Plaintiff sufficiently presented himself to the business to have been denied access. As noted above, Plaintiff only states that he “went” to the Restaurant, but doesn’t describe what his visit entailed, i.e., approaching the business, attempting to order, etc. Thus, the parties are ordered to file a supplemental brief regarding what it means for a plaintiff to sufficiently present himself or herself to a business under the Unruh Act. Supplemental briefs must be filed and served no later than ten (10) days before the next hearing.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Brian Whitaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED TO MAY 13, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 10 days before the next scheduled hearing, the parties must file and serve a supplemental brief as requested herein.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KAJIMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HANDY RUSSELL ESQ.