On 10/24/2019 JERRY JACKSON filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against YUP DDUK LA. 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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES E. BLANCARTE
KING JOEL L
ALMG INVESTMENTS LLC
YUP DDUK LA
1/11/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Filing Status of Defendant's Answer) of 01/11/2021
1/11/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Filing Status of Defendant's Answer)
4/15/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
3/11/2020: Answer - Answer
2/20/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
1/9/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
10/24/2019: Complaint - Complaint
10/24/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
10/24/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
10/24/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
10/24/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
10/24/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
Hearing10/27/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing05/12/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/12/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Filing Status of Defendant's Answer)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Filing Status of Defendant's Answer) of 01/11/2021; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Filing Status of Defendant's Answer scheduled for 01/11/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 01/11/2021; Result Type to HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 01/11/2021Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Order to Show Cause Re: Filing Status of Defendant's Answer scheduled for 04/21/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 01/11/2021 09:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by: ALMG Investments LLC (Defendant); As to: Jerry Jackson (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jerry Jackson (Plaintiff); As to: Yup Dduk LA (Defendant); ALMG Investments LLC (Defendant); Joel L King (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jerry Jackson (Plaintiff); As to: Yup Dduk LA (Defendant); ALMG Investments LLC (Defendant); Joel L King (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Jerry Jackson (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Jerry Jackson (Plaintiff); As to: Yup Dduk LA (Defendant); ALMG Investments LLC (Defendant); Joel L King (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Jerry Jackson (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/27/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STLC09817 Hearing Date: February 20, 2020 Dept: 25
(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)
Defendant ALMG Investments, LLC dba YUP DDUK LA’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.
On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff Jerry Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for damages for violations of civil rights on the basis of discrimination in public accommodations against Defendants YUP DDUK LA, ALMG Investments, LLC, Joel L. King, and Jaehwa King (collectively, “Defendants”).
On January 9, 2020, Defendant ALMG Investments, LLC dba YUP DDUK LA (“ALMG”) filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Demurrer”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.
“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its
case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to
affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)
“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of
America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges
facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not
“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the
complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded
factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of
which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,
however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.
Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)
Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)
Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)
As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a).) (Mot., Jang Decl., ¶ 4.)
Defendant ALMG demurs to Plaintiff’s entire Complaint on the ground that it fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action and on the ground that each cause of action is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.
Demurrers for failure to state a cause of action or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are “general” demurrers. (McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 77.) All other grounds listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 are considered “special” demurrers. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)
Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear ALMG’s demurrer on the ground of uncertainty.
First & Second Causes of Action – Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
“The Unruh Civil Rights Act was enacted to ‘create and preserve a nondiscriminatory environment in California business establishments by ‘banishing’ or ‘eradicating’ arbitrary, invidious discrimination by such establishments.’” (Flowers v. Prasad (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 930, 937.) The Unruh Act provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (b).)
The 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.” (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (f).) Under the ADA, discrimination on the basis of disability includes “failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services.” (42 USC § 12182, subd. (b)(2)(A)(iii); 28 CFR § 36.303, subd. (a).)
Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is disabled and confined to a wheelchair, that on January 21, 2019, Plaintiff attempted to patronize Defendants’ Restaurant (the “Restaurant”), that he did not find wheelchair accessible seating, and that he was unable to fully position him under a table to eat or drink due to a barrier, i.e., a table stand post and base (Compl., ¶¶ 4, 8.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated and continue to violate the ADA by not removing the barriers despite Plaintiff’s request to remove them made in writing at least 30 days prior to filing the Complaint. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Plaintiff further alleges that he wishes to patronize the business in the future without being further discriminated against. (Id. at ¶ 14.)
Defendant ALMG argues, relying on Surrey v. True Beginnings, LLC (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-18, that Plaintiff does not have standing to sue because he never tendered payment for food or services at the restaurant. (Mot., p. 8:3-9.) In Surrey, Plaintiff brought an action under Civil Code section 52, which allows for any person aggrieved by a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to bring a civil action. (Civ. Code § 52, subd. (c).) (Italics added.) However, a disabled plaintiff is not required to demonstrate he tendered payment to establish standing to sue under the Unruh Civil Rights Acts as long as he alleges facts demonstrating he experienced a denial of rights as set forth in Civil Code sections 51 and 52. (See Osborne v. Yasmeh (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1122.) Thus, Plaintiff is not required to allege he tendered payment.
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges facts to constitute a claim under Civil Code section 51.
Third Cause of Action – Violation of The Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”), Civil Code §§ 54 & 54.1
Civil Code section 54 subdivision (a) states that [i]ndividuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of…public buildings,…public facilities, and other public places.” A violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act constitutes a violation under this section. (Code Civ. Proc., § 54, subd. (c).) Code of Civil Procedure section 54.1, subdivision (a)(1) states that “[i]ndividuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, …places of public accommodation,…and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons.” “ ‘Access’ refers not only to entry into a building but, more broadly, to the use of all facilities made available for general public use, such as restrooms, parking, and fixtures within a building.” (Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 254, 261.)
Again, Plaintiff alleges he is disabled and confined to a wheelchair and that he attempted to patronize the Restaurant on at least one occasion, on January 21, 2019, but was unable to do so. (Compl., ¶¶ 4, 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he was denied full and equal access because a construction related barrier, i.e., a table stand post and base, prevented him from fully positioning himself under the table to eat and drink, and that he did not find other wheelchair accessible seating allowing him to patronize the business on the same basis as non-disabled patrons. (Compl., ¶ 8.)
Based on these allegations, the Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges facts to constitute a claim under Civil Code sections 54 and 54.1
C. ALMG’s Other Arguments
Defendant ALMG also argues that Plaintiff’s entire Complaint should be stricken because he failed to give pre-litigation notice as required by Civil Code section 55.3. However, Section 55.3 applies to plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief under Civil Code section 55, which Plaintiff does not seek. Thus, Section 55.3 is inapplicable.
Defendant also argues that the Demurrer to the entire complaint should be sustained because Plaintiff failed to show why he was a “genuine customer” and not a “hunter who was searching the victims to extort settlement money,” what Plaintiff’s state of mind was, how long Plaintiff drove from his home to the Restaurant, why Plaintiff went to the Restaurant, and what Plaintiff intended to buy. (Mot., p. 7.) However, the Civil Code does not require Plaintiff to plead what Defendant argues, nor has Defendant cited any authority supporting his position.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant ALMG Investments, LLC dba YUP DDUK LA’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.