This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/01/2020 at 05:49:47 (UTC).

ROY MASON VS FLORE ORGANIC VEGAN CUISINE, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/18/2019 ROY MASON filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against FLORE ORGANIC VEGAN CUISINE. 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:

    *******8609

  • Filing Date:

    09/18/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MASON ROY

Defendants

FLORE ORGANIC VEGAN CUISINE

TIERRA RESTAURANTS LLC

AVIANO LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SHIN TED

Defendant Attorney

CHANDLER PAUL

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 06/29/2020

6/29/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 06/29/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

6/29/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/15/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

12/16/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration re Automatic Extension

11/12/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration re Automatic Extension

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/13/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/13/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/13/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

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

9/18/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

9/18/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

9/18/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/18/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

9/18/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/19/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/21/2022
  • Hearing09/21/2022 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
  • 03/17/2021
  • Hearing03/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 06/29/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 06/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 06/29/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 04/21/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 06/29/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2019
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: Flore Organic Vegan Cuisine (Defendant); Tierra Restaurants LLC (Defendant); Aviano LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2019
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 04/21/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Roy Mason (Plaintiff); As to: Flore Organic Vegan Cuisine (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/10/2019; Service Cost: 120.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/21/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Roy Mason (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Roy Mason (Plaintiff); As to: Flore Organic Vegan Cuisine (Defendant); Tierra Restaurants LLC (Defendant); Aviano LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Roy Mason (Plaintiff); As to: Flore Organic Vegan Cuisine (Defendant); Tierra Restaurants LLC (Defendant); Aviano LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Roy Mason (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Roy Mason (Plaintiff); As to: Flore Organic Vegan Cuisine (Defendant); Tierra Restaurants LLC (Defendant); Aviano LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC08609    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 26

Manson v. Flore Organic Vegan Cuisine, et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Flore Organic Vegan Cuisine, Tierra Restaurants LLC and Aviano, LLC’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS ARE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Roy Manson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendants Flore Organic Vegan Cuisine, Tierra Restaurants LLC and Aviano, LLC (“Defendants”) on September 18, 2019. On December 16, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

The Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Chandler Decl., ¶¶4-5.) Defendants demur to the Complaint for failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the statutory requirements, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.50, 425.55 and Civil Code sections 55.54 and 55.3, subdivision (b).

The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code section 51, subdivision (b); (2) violation of Civil Code section 51, subdivision (f); and (3) violation of Civil Code section 54. In their Demurrer, Defendants first argue that the Complaint does not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.50 and 425.55. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.50 states in relevant part:

An allegation of a construction-related accessibility claim in a complaint . . . shall state facts sufficient to allow a reasonable person to identify the basis of the violation or violations supporting the claim, including all of the following:

(1) A plain language explanation of the specific access barrier or barriers the individual encountered, or by which the individual alleges he or she was deterred, with sufficient information about the location of the alleged barrier to enable a reasonable person to identify the access barrier.

(2) The way in which the barrier denied the individual full and equal use or access, or in which it deterred the individual, on each particular occasion.

(3) The date or dates of each particular occasion on which the claimant encountered the specific access barrier, or on which he or she was deterred.

(4)(A) Except in complaints that allege physical injury or damage to property, a complaint filed by or on behalf of a high-frequency litigant shall also state all of the following:

(i) Whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant.

(ii) In the case of a high-frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility claim that the high-frequency litigant has filed during the 12 months prior to filing the complaint.

(iii) In the case of a high-frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant's business.

(iv) In the case of a high-frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant's business, including the specific commercial, business, personal, social, leisure, recreational, or other purpose.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 425.50.) The Complaint satisfies these requirements. It alleges that Plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant who has filed more than 12 construction-related discrimination complaints in the past 12 months. (Compl., ¶34.) It also alleges that he was visiting the city where Defendants’ business is located in order to “enjoy the site and points of interest of said city” and patronized the business because he was hungry and thirsty. (Ibid.) The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiff is exempt from the filing fee, which is heightened for high-frequency litigants, due to the fee waiver granted on September 18, 2019. (Id. at ¶35.) Indeed, the demurrer does not specifically point out which of these factors was not alleged, or inadequately alleged, in the Complaint.

Plaintiff also demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to allege with specificity how the alleged violations to impaired Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment alleged disability. In other words, the Complaint does not allege the connection between the alleged violations and Plaintiff’s disability. The Complaint, however, does make specific allegations in that respect. Plaintiff alleges he is “disabled and confined to a wheelchair for mobility purposes” but Defendants’ business lacked “ADA-Compliant accessible seating for disabled persons in wheelchairs.” (Compl., ¶¶4, 8.) As a result, Plaintiff was unable to get fully under the table and was unable to get close enough to the table in his wheelchair in order to patronize the business on a equal basis as non-disabled customers. (Id. at ¶8.) This is an adequate plain language explanation of the specific access barrier Plaintiff encountered and why it denied him full and equal access to Defendants’ business.

Based on the foregoing, the Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Plaintiff to give notice.