This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2022 at 21:06:24 (UTC).

RUSTY RENDON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DAVE & BUSTER'S INC., A MISSOURI CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 06/16/2022 RUSTY RENDON, AN INDIVIDUAL filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against DAVE BUSTER'S INC , A MISSOURI CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM F. FAHEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9598

  • Filing Date:

    06/16/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM F. FAHEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RENDON AN INDIVIDUAL RUSTY

Defendant

DAVE & BUSTER'S INC. A MISSOURI CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KNOWLES VICTORIA CAMPBELL

 

Court Documents

Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

6/17/2022: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE], DEPARTMENT 69 ONLINE COURTROOM INFORMATION

6/17/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE], DEPARTMENT 69 ONLINE COURTROOM INFORMATION

Notice of Case Management Conference

6/17/2022: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

6/16/2022: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/16/2022: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

6/16/2022: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Voluntary Efficient Litigation Stipulation Packet

6/16/2022: Voluntary Efficient Litigation Stipulation Packet

Unknown - FIRST AMENDED GENERAL ORDER RE: MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING

6/16/2022: Unknown - FIRST AMENDED GENERAL ORDER RE: MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING

Unknown - ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PACKET

6/16/2022: Unknown - ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PACKET

Complaint

6/16/2022: Complaint

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE FILED AGAINST...)

6/17/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE FILED AGAINST...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE FILED AGAINST...) OF 06/17/2022

6/17/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE FILED AGAINST...) OF 06/17/2022

Notice of Case Management Conference

6/20/2022: Notice of Case Management Conference

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

6/17/2022: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/15/2022
  • Hearing09/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Case Management Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/20/2022
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • Docketat 1:41 PM in Department 69, William F. Fahey, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re Plaintiff's Peremptory Challenge filed against...) of 06/17/2022); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re Plaintiff's Peremptory Challenge filed against...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Rusty Rendon, an individual (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Case Management Conference, Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service], Department 69 Online Courtroom Information); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketVoluntary Efficient Litigation Stipulation Packet; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketFirst Amended General Order re: Mandatory Electronic Filing; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketAlternate Dispute Resolution Packet; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Rusty Rendon, an individual (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Rusty Rendon, an individual (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rusty Rendon, an individual (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******9598 Hearing Date: November 3, 2022 Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Rusty Rendon,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

*******9598

vs.

Tentative Ruling

Dave & Buster’s, Inc.,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: November 3, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Dave & Buster’s, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Rusty Rendon

RULING: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff sued Defendant, asserting one cause of action for violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website is inaccessible for blind and visually impaired individuals.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it. (CCP 430.50(a).) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732-33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id. at 733.)

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that it fails to state sufficient facts. Defendant asserts that its website is not a “place of public accommodation” pursuant to the ADA, and Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing intentional discrimination and showing Plaintiff is a bona fide patron who suffered injury.

Under the Unruh Act, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal . . . and no matter what their . . . disability [or other protected characteristic] . . . are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code 51; see also CACI No. 3066.) “Whoever denies, aids, or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction” contrary to the Unruh Act is liable for damages. (Civ. Code, 52(a).) A violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also qualifies as a violation of Unruh. (Civ. Code 51(f).)

A cause of action under Unruh consists of these elements: (1) the defendant denied the plaintiff access to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in a business establishment; (2) the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class was a motivating factor for this denial; and (3) defendants’ wrongful conduct caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm. (See Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda (2012) 859 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1048.) Importantly, “[a] plaintiff who establishes a violation of the ADA . . . need not prove intentional discrimination in order to obtain damages under section 52.” (Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 665.) By contrast, a plaintiff establishing an Unruh violation that is not also an ADA violation must establish that the discrimination was intentional. (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1172; see Long v. Playboy Enterprises Intern., Inc. (2014) 565 Fed.Appx. 646, 647-648 [observing that the Munson Court’s holding did not disturb the requirement that a non-ADA Unruh claim be based on intentional discrimination].)

1. Business Establishment

The Unruh Act applies only to “business establishments.” (Civ. Code 51.) The ADA applies to “places of public accommodation.” The Court of Appeal recently held that websites that have a nexus to a physical location are “places of public accommodation” under the ADA. (Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1026, 1052.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owns and operates restaurants. (Compl. 9.) This is sufficient to establish Defendant is a business establishment under the Unruh Act and a place of public accommodation under the ADA. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis.

2. Intentional Discrimination

As Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of the ADA, Plaintiff need not allege intentional discrimination.

3. Bona Fide Patron and Injury

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s is not a bona fide patron of the website and did not suffer injury because Plaintiff is a “tester” of websites for ADA compliance. Plaintiff alleges a genuine intent to use Defendant’s services and products. (Compl. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was unable to access Defendant’s website due to its inaccessibility. The Court must treat Plaintiff’s allegations as true.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DAVE & BUSTER'S OF CALIFORNIA INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KNOWLES VICTORIA C.