Cal. Civ. Code § 51

When a Section 51 claim rests solely on an ADA violation, the same allocation of burdens governs liability under both statutes.

Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Insurance · filed 1998-01-16

At least where, as here, a plaintiff bases an alleged Unruh Act violation solely on liability under the ADA, the allocation of burdens should be the same for the purpose- of determining liability under both statutes.

Section 51 requires a plaintiff to allege discrimination on a protected basis or another basis for an Unruh Act violation.

Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Service · filed 1984-12-21

As for the claimed violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§ 51-53), appellant has not alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin (Civ. Code, § 51), or alleged any other basis for such a violation. Appellant has not stated a cause of action.

Section 51 permits injunctive relief for ADA violations without proof of discriminatory intent.

Gunther v. Lin · filed 2006-10-26(f)

As we have shown above, claims for injunctive relief for ADA violations under the Unruh Civil Rights Act do indeed not require discriminatory intent.

Section 51(f) permits recovery under the Unruh Act for an ADA violation even when relief under the ADA itself is unavailable.

Hubbard v. Twin Oaks Health & Rehabilitation Center · filed 2004-11-12(f)

Because § 51(f) employs broad language, without any indication of an intent to limit recovery, it seems clear that the legislature intended to provide a remedy for individuals who suffered a violation of the ADA but who could not recover under that Act because the conditions justifying injunctive relief no longer obtain. I conclude that plaintiff may recover under the Unruh Act, even absent relief under the ADA itself.

Section 51(f) generally treats an ADA violation as an Unruh Act violation, so a triable ADA claim can support an Unruh Act claim.

Newman v. San Joaquin Delta Community College District · filed 2011-08-31(f)

Violations of the ADA generally constitute violations of the Unruh Act and DPA. ... Here, based on her opposition, it appears that Newman’s Unruh Act and DPA claims are based solely on the ADA violation. Because Newman has a triable ADA claim, the court will deny the motion with respect to these state law claims.

Section 51(f) treats an ADA violation as an Unruh Act violation without requiring proof of intentional discrimination.

Spikes v. Shockley · filed 2019-10-28(f)

“[A] violation of the ADA is, per se, a violation of the Unruh Act.” ... Moreover, “no showing of intentional discrimination is required when the Unruh Act violation is premised on an ADA violation.”

Section 51(f) permits an Unruh Act disability claim based on an ADA reasonable accommodation theory even when a disability based discrimination theory fails.

Wormuth v. Lammersville Union Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-01-22(f)

Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is derivative of his ADA disability discrimination claim. ... Accordingly, analysis of the Unruh Act claim mirrors that of the ADA claim: Summary judgment is GRANTED to the extent the Unruh Act claim derives from a disability based discrimination theory, but summary judgment is DENIED to the extent the Unruh Act claim derives from a reasonable accommodation theory.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, so facts supporting a prima facie ADA claim also support an Unruh Act claim.

Pomponio v. Budwal · filed 2020-06-29(f)

As expressly provided by statute, a violation of the ADA also constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. ... Here, because plaintiff’s complaint alleges a prima facie claim under the ADA, plaintiff has also alleged facts supporting a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation an Unruh Act violation, so factual disputes over a derivative ADA claim also defeat summary judgment on the Unruh Act claim.

Schutza v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2020-11-09(f)

Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is derivative of his ADA claim. Thus, because genuine issues of material fact exist as to the ADA claim, as discussed above, the same issues defeat summary judgment on the Unruh Act claim.

Section 51(f) makes any violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Strojnik v. JW World Enterprises, Inc. Best Western Bakersfield North · filed 2021-01-04(f)

Significantly, any violation of the ADA also is a violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Hernandez v. BMV Hotels, LP · filed 2021-01-22(f)

Under the Unruh Act, a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Act.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, so an adequately stated ADA claim also states an Unruh claim.

Macias v. Fasail · filed 2021-07-01(f)

As to Plaintiff’s UCRA claim, the UCRA provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of the UCRA. ... Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately stated an ADA claim, the Court also concludes that Plaintiff has adequately stated a UCRA claim.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Act without requiring proof of intentional discrimination.

Schutza v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2021-07-07(f)

“[A] violation of the ADA is, per se, a violation of the Unruh Act.” Lentini, 370 F.3d at 847; see Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). Moreover, “no showing of intentional discrimination is required when the Unruh Act violation is premised on an ADA violation.” Lentini, 370 F.3d at 847. ... Thus, because Plaintiff has established Defendant’s liability under the ADA for his April 2018 visit to the Store, Defendant is also liable for a violation of the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Act regardless of whether the discrimination was intentional.

Whitaker v. Lucky Opco LLC · filed 2021-08-05(f)

A violation of the ADA is a per se violation of the Unruh Act, see Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f), regardless of whether the discrimination was intentional, see Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 208 P.3d 623, 625 (Cal. 2009); Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, since Whitaker has adequately pleaded an ADA violation, he has also adequately pleaded an Unruh Act violation.

Section 51(f) treats an ADA violation as an Unruh Act violation, allowing an Unruh Act claim to proceed based on an adequately pleaded Title II claim.

Guadagnini v. SamTrans · filed 2021-10-01(f)

Finally, Guadagnini has stated a claim against defendants for violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act because “a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act.” Cohen, 754 F.3d at 701 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f)). Guadagnini’s Unruh claim may therefore proceed as derivative of his Title II claim.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation automatically a violation of the Unruh Act.

Whitaker v. Sifflet · filed 2021-10-19(f)

The Eifel factors also weigh in favor of default judgment: the complaint adequately alleges violations of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a violation of the ADA automatically constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act, and the defendant was properly served. See Eitel v. McCool, 728 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

Section 51(f) makes a violation of an individual’s rights under the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Sepulveda v. Lakeshore 76, Inc. · filed 2021-10-28(f)

A violation of the right of any individual under the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act and the CDPA. ... To the extent that Sepulveda seeks to establish state law violations based on ADA violations, summary judgment is denied because he has not succeeded on his ADA claims.

Section 51(f) permits an Unruh Act claim based on an ADA violation, but an alleged barrier that does not violate ADA standards cannot support that predicate.

Wilson v. Pan Norcal, LLC · filed 2022-07-25(f)

Violations of both the DPA and the Unruh Act can be predicated on either intentional discrimination or a violation of the ADA. ... Given this, there is no factual dispute related to the closing of the door; the court grants summary judgment on Wilson’s DPA and Unruh Act claims as to the door.

An ADA violation is also a violation of the Unruh Act under Section 51(f), without a showing of intentional discrimination.

Langer v. Euclid Avenue, LLC · filed 2022-08-22(f)

“[A] violation of the ADA is, per se, a violation of the Unruh Act.” See Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004); Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). Moreover, “no showing of intentional discrimination is required when the Unruh Act violation is premised on an ADA violation.” Id.

Under § 51(f), an ADA violation also violates the Unruh Act, so allegations stating an ADA claim also state an Unruh Act claim.

Trujillo v. Hernandez · filed 2022-11-18(f)

A violation of the ADA also violates the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). ... As Plaintiff’s allegations state a cause of action entitling him to relief under the ADA, Plaintiff’s allegations also state a claim entitling him to relief under the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Gilbert v. Samra · filed 2022-12-02(f)

A violation of the ADA also violates the Unruh Act. ... As Plaintiff’s claims state a cause of action entitling him to relief under the ADA, Plaintiff’s allegations also state a claim entitling him to relief under the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Gilbert v. Bagga Grandsons Inc · filed 2023-08-11(f)

As expressly provided by statute, a violation of the ADA also constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

An Unruh Act claim predicated on an ADA violation does not require proof of intent to discriminate.

Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc. · filed 2024-11-15(f)

Nor is intent an element of an Unruh Act claim predicated on an ADA violation.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Act.

Dytch v. Wawa Thai Food LLC · filed 2024-03-20(f)

Plaintiff has established this because a violation of the ADA simultaneously qualifies as a ... violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

Section 51(f) makes a violation of an individual’s ADA rights a violation of the Unruh Act, so an adequately pleaded ADA claim also adequately pleads an Unruh Act claim.

Maldonado v. California Preferred Construction Co., Inc. · filed 2025-04-03(f)

Thus, by adequately pleading her ADA claim, Maldonado has also adequately pleaded her Unruh Act claim ... Court thus finds this factor weighs in favor of default judgement.

Section 51 does not impose liability on employment relationships.

Smith v. John Christner Trucking · filed 2025-09-12

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the proposed amendment is futile: while the Unruh Act does not impose liability on employment relationships, see Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2008), Rule 8(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly permits the pleading of alternative and inconsistent claims.

Section 51 covers equal treatment in business establishments when they provide accommodations, privileges, or services, and does not support employment discrimination claims.

Stamps v. Superior Court · filed 2006-02-27(b)

The rule that employment cases cannot be based on section 51 is explained simply: Section 51, on its face, applies to “accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments.”

Section 51(f) incorporates ADA protections only when they concern the Unruh Act’s existing subject matter, so it does not cover employment discrimination under ADA Title I.

Bass v. County of Butte · filed 2006-08-14(f)

Here, the context of the 1992 amendment leads us to conclude that the California leg- islature intended to incorporate into the Unruh Act and the DPA only those provisions of the ADA germane to the origi- nal scope of those state laws.

Section 51 does not apply to employment discrimination.

Rojo v. Kliger · filed 1990-12-20

No specific mention was made of Civil Code section 51, because none was needed: the Unruh Civil Rights Act has no application to employment discrimination.

Section 51 bars title insurers from discriminating among purchasers based on personal characteristics, but permits them to decline particular title risks.

Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. · filed 1998-09-23

While title insurers may not discriminate among purchasers on the basis of the purchasers’ race, ethnicity, religion, gender or other personal characteristics (see Civ. Code, § 51), they may opt to limit their potential liability by declining certain risks without violating any statutory or common law obligation.

Section 51 covers places of public accommodation like those it lists, but does not include cemeteries.

Long v. Mountain View Cemetery Assn. · filed 1955-01-24

The only question of law involved here is whether section 51 of the Civil Code applies to this case. ... The settled rule of law is that the expression “all other places” means all other places of a like nature to those enumerated, i. e., “restaurants, hotels,” etc. In a similar case involving a like statute the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the expression “all other places of public accommodation and amusement” did not include cemeteries. ... There is no merit in any of the arguments of appellant. Judgment affirmed.

Section 51 allows people of lawful age to patronize a public restaurant and bar while acting properly, and permits exclusion only for good cause.

Stoumen v. Reilly · filed 1951-08-28

Members of the public of lawful age have a right to patronize a public restaurant and bar so long as they are acting properly and are not committing illegal or immoral acts; the proprietor has no right to exclude or eject a patron “except for good cause,” and if he does so without good cause he is liable in damages. (See Civ. Code, §§ 51, 52.)

Section 51 does not apply to county jails because they are not business establishments.

Dunsmore v. State of California · filed 2022-09-27

The County moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ eighth claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq., because county jails are not considered “business establishments” and thus the Unruh Act does not apply to it. (Doc. No. 133 at 21.) Plaintiffs concede that a claim under the Unruh Act does not lie against the County. (Doc. No. 177 at 8.) Thus, the Court GRANTS the County’s motion to dismiss the eighth claim against it WITH PREJUDICE.

Section 51(b) does not apply to a city’s enactment of legislation because the city is not acting as a business establishment.

Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim · filed 2010-08-18(b)

Because the terms of the Unruh Civil Rights Act expressly apply to “business establishments,” we see no room for its application to the city’s legislative action here.

Section 51 requires discrimination by a business establishment or denial of public accommodations; alleged conduct causing imprisonment and its disadvantages, without that connection, falls outside the Act.

Marsh v. San Diego County · filed 2006-05-05(b)

The Court finds Defendants’ alleged conduct does not fall within the purpose and scope of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. While it is clear Plaintiffs incarceration caused him certain disadvantages, it is not clear how Defendants’ alleged conduct is coterminous with a business establishment discriminating against Plaintiff arbitrarily or denying him public accommodations, and Plaintiff offers no further guidance on this issue. Therefore, Plaintiffs § 51 claim must be dismissed.

Section 51 covers a for-profit jail medical contractor as a business establishment when it provides services to inmates for a fee.

Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda · filed 2012-03-14(b)

By providing services for a fee, PHS/Corizon performs a “customary business function,” through which it serves inmates like Plaintiff. That customary business function renders it a “business establishment” under the broad terms of the Unruh Act.

Section 51 prohibits discrimination in business services and accommodations; a plaintiff who asserts only a claim under section 51.9 has not asserted a section 51 claim.

Salisbury v. Hickman · filed 2013-09-24(b)

The Unruh Civil Rights Act refers to California Civil Code section 51 only. ... That section makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person in providing business services and accommodations. ... Here, Ms. Salisbury makes no attempt to argue that she asserts such a claim, or asserts any other claim other than one under section 51.9. ... The Court will therefore construe this claim accordingly.

Section 51 requires facts showing that a public entity acted as a business establishment; municipal area cleanings conducted as a public service do not satisfy that requirement without allegations of business-like activity.

Cooley v. The City of Los Angeles · filed 2019-08-05(b)

Here, there are no allegations in the complaint that support an inference that the area cleanings are a business-like activity. Rather, it appears that the City conducts area cleanings as a public service.

Section 51(b) does not treat Poverello House and Naomi’s House as business establishments on the facts presented.

McGee v. Poverello House · filed 2019-10-30(b)

Based on the facts of this case and the available authority regarding business establishments under the Act, the Court holds that Poverello House and Naomi’s House are not “business establishments” within meaning of the Unruh Act.

Section 51 applies only to business establishments.

Walker v. Police Chief · filed 2019-12-12

Plaintiff also cites California Civil Code section 51, also known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which applies only to 28 “business establishments.”

Section 51 does not treat prisons as business establishments covered by the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

(PC) Trotter v. Pfeiffer · filed 2019-12-19(b)

However, first, prisons are not business establishments under California Civil Code § 51.

Section 51(b) prohibits race discrimination in business establishments, including restaurants.

Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken · filed 2020-10-01(b)

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Act”) forbids race discrimination at places of public accommodation “in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever,” including restaurants like Taco Bell and KFC. See Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).

Section 51 does not apply to jails and prisons because they are not business establishments under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

(PC) Harbor v. CDCR · filed 2021-02-09(b)

First, “numerous district courts have held that jails and prison are not business establishments and, as a result, are not subject to suit under section 51.”

A private operator of a federal detention center does not qualify as a business establishment under Section 51 based on its relationship with a detainee.

The Estate of Carlos Escobar Mejia v. Archambeault · filed 2021-09-27

Plaintiffs’ argument that CoreCivic, a private operator of federal detention centers, qualifies as a business establishment under the Unruh Act is unpersuasive.

An age discrimination claim under section 51 requires allegations that the defendant is a business establishment generally open to the public.

(PS) Storman v. Alta Regional Center · filed 2021-10-07(b)

However, plaintiff does not allege defendant is a business establishment generally open to the public within the meaning of the Unruh Act.

Section 51(b) treats a board certification organization as a business establishment when it serves a public purpose, conducts business functions, and provides a public resource.

DeZure v. The American Board of Pediatrics, Inc. · filed 2021-11-01(b)

Accordingly, because it serves a public purpose, conducts business functions, and provides a public resource, ABP is a business establishment under the Unruh Act.

Section 51(b) protects equal access to business establishments; police officers who did not affect access to a store are not proper defendants under the Unruh Act.

G. v. City of Lafayette · filed 2021-11-29(b)

Should plaintiffs wish to assert an Unruh Act claim based on deprivation of equal access to ... the store, they should assert it against the store. White is not a proper defendant, nor is any other ... police officer or named defendant.

A county is subject to Section 51 only when it was acting as a business establishment at the time of the alleged discrimination.

C.O. v. County of Kern · filed 2022-01-31

Further, an entity such as a city or county must be acting as a business establishment when the alleged wrongful acts occurred.

Section 51 requires a county to be acting as a business establishment when the alleged discrimination occurs, and a bare allegation that it is one does not suffice.

H.M. v. County of Kern · filed 2022-01-31

Given the complete dearth of factual allegations regarding how Plaintiff believes the County acted as a business establishment at the time of the alleged wrongful acts—which appear to have occurred at a private business not owned or operated by the County—the Court is unable to find the County was operating as a “business establishment” such that liability may be imposed under the Unruh Act.

Section 51 can cover a private contractor transporting immigration detainees even though the service is unavailable to the general public.

Youngers v. Management & Training Company · filed 2022-04-01

The Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, grants individuals protection against discrimination in business establishments. ... Wilkins-Jones stands for the proposition that the California legislature was likely concerned that all Californians would have equal access to prison medical care, even though prison medical care, like operation of a bus for immigration detainees, is not a service available to the general public. ... This claim therefore survives the motion to dismiss.

Section 51 treats appraisers as business establishments covered by the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Austin v. Miller · filed 2022-04-13

Given the above authority, the Court finds appraisers, such as the Miller Defendants,16 fall within the Unruh Act’s broad definition of a business establishment.

Section 51(b) does not cover public school districts because they are not business establishments under the Unruh Act.

Jane Doe 1 v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District · filed 2021-08-31(b)

The court also grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim because California recently determined that “public school districts are not business establishments under the Unruh Act.” Brennon B. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cty., 57 Cal. App. 5th 367 (2020).

Section 51 requires the defendant to act as a business establishment; conducting or attending a public Board meeting is not operating as a commercial enterprise.

Ryan v. County of Imperial · filed 2022-09-29

The Court dismisses these claims with prejudice because Plaintiffs could not plausibly allege facts to show that the County and its government officials conducting a public Board meeting, and private individuals attending such meeting, are operating as a commercial enterprise to constitute a business establishment.

Section 51(b) does not treat a state agency as a business establishment.

Haley v. Calif. Dept. of Rehab. · filed 2022-11-22(b)

A state agency such as the Department is not a “business establishment” within the meaning of section 51(b).

Section 51 does not cover prisons because they are not business establishments.

(PC) Walker v. Secretary of Corrections · filed 2023-01-13

Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim fails because a prison is not considered a “business establishment” within the meaning of the act.

Section 51(f) treats an ADA violation as an Unruh Act violation only when a business establishment commits it.

Sandoval v. City of National City · filed 2023-02-01(f)

In addition, the California Supreme Court recently clarified that section 51(f) providing that a violation of the ADA is also a violation of the Unruh Act means that “any violation of the ADA by a business establishment is also a violation of the [Unruh Civil Rights Act].” Brennon B. v. Superior Ct., 13 Cal. 5th 662, 685 (2022) (emphasis added). Therefore, because Plaintiff has not alleged that the City was engaged in business-like activity during the incident, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Unruh Civil Rights Act cause of action for failure to state a claim.

Section 51(b) treats a corporation doing business in California as a business establishment for purposes of a racial discrimination claim when those facts are plausibly pleaded.

Absolute USA, Inc. v. Harman Professional, Inc. · filed 2023-02-14(b)

With the Unruh Act’s broad coverage in mind, and taking all allegations in the SAC as true—as this Court must on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss—the Court finds that Harman qualifies as a business under the meaning of the Unruh Act.

Section 51 does not cover a prison as a business establishment unless the prison engages in behavior with sufficient businesslike attributes.

(PC) Walker v. Secretary of Corrections · filed 2023-03-02

Plaintiff has been informed that his Unruh Act claim fails because a prison is not considered a “business establishment” under the Act unless it engages in behavior involving sufficient “businesslike attributes.”

Section 51 permits liability against a county under the Unruh Act only when the county acts as a business establishment at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct.

H.M. v. County of Kern · filed 2022-05-23

The Court is unable to find the County operated as a “business establishment” such that liability may be imposed under the Unruh Act in this action.

Section 51 guarantees equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in business establishments regardless of protected characteristics.

Horton v. Cauley · filed 2023-03-16(b)

Known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, section 51 entitles all persons within California to “the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever,” regardless of their sex, race, color, disability, medical condition, or other characteristics. ... Horton’s Unruh Act claim is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice against all defendants.

Section 51 does not provide a claim for conduct that involves no denial of access to a public accommodation offered by a business establishment.

(PS) Hill v. City of Sacramento · filed 2023-07-06(b)

And the situation giving rise to this lawsuit did not involve denial of access to any public accommodation offered by a business establishment.

Section 51(b) requires allegations that a public entity was acting as a commercial enterprise when it denied services to state an Unruh Act claim.

Gelber v. City of Willits · filed 2023-10-23(b)

Here, there are no allegations which support an inference the City and the water department were engaging in a “commercial enterprise” when they declined to provide water services absent proof of ownership.

Section 51(b) applies to residential apartment complexes engaged in renting housing accommodations.

Lu v. Vivente 1, Inc. · filed 2023-06-12(b)

Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s claim is brought under Section 51(b), it would not fail on the basis that it is being brought as to a residential apartment complex.

Section 51(b) does not cover public school districts providing free education because they are not business establishments.

Posey v. San Francisco Unified School District · filed 2023-12-04(b)

Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against any Defendant because schools are not “business establishments.”

Section 51 does not treat a private detention facility operator as a business establishment liable for disability discrimination against detainees when their relationship is that of detainee and operator.

Ahn v. GEO Group, Inc. · filed 2024-03-25(b)

Because GEO is not a “business establishment” liable under the Unruh Act for disability discrimination of detainees in connection with its operation of a detention facility, Plaintiff’s claim under the Unruh Act must be dismissed.

Section 51 does not cover disability discrimination by public schools because they are not business establishments under the Unruh Act.

Marin v. Carroll · filed 2024-06-11(b)

Because schools are not “business establishments” within the meaning of the Unruh Act, Plaintiff has no viable claim under this statute.

Section 51 reaches discrimination in relationships similar to a proprietor/customer relationship; plaintiffs who do not allege a customer-like relationship with the business fail to state a claim.

Alexandre v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2024-05-23(b)

Binding Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses Plaintiffs’ arguments and states that “§51.5, like §51, is aimed only at discrimination in relationships similar to the proprietor/customer relationship.” Johnson, 534 F.3d at 1126–27 (citing Strother, 79 F.3d at 875). Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, as the Court must do, Plaintiffs again do not plead in their SAC that they are similar to customers of Amazon in any sense. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss both Unruh Act causes of action under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 51(b) does not cover jail or prison services because jails and prisons are not business establishments.

Senator v. Macomber · filed 2024-09-03(b)

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff alleges an Unruh claim relating to jail or prison services, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Unruh Act.

Section 51(b) applies to a public entity only when it operates as a business establishment in the activity at issue; allowing the public to assemble freely on city property does not make the city a business establishment for that event.

Mayer v. City Of San Jose · filed 2024-09-16(b)

The Court finds that City is not subject to the Unruh Act based on these specific facts. ... In other words, there is no evidence that the City operated as a business when it allowed Mayer and other members of the public to freely assemble on its property for the First Amendment Events.

Section 51 applies only to business establishments, so a claim must plausibly allege that the defendant qualifies as one.

Kohn v. State Bar of California · filed 2024-10-21(b)

Kohn’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the State Bar is a “business establishment,” and thus fails to demonstrate that Kohn’s claims fall within the Unruh Act’s purview.

Section 51 does not cover prisons because they are not business establishments under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

(PC) Garland v. CDCR · filed 2025-01-06

Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim fails because a prison is not considered a “business establishment” within the meaning of the act.

Section 51(b) does not treat a public school district providing educational services as a business establishment, so the district cannot be liable for discrimination under the Unruh Act.

W. v. Santa Rosa City Schools · filed 2025-04-22(b)

Under Brennon, it is clear the District cannot be liable for discrimination under the Unruh Act.

Section 51(b) does not treat a government entity’s regulatory permitting decisions as acts of a business establishment.

(PS) Baker v. Zipline International Inc. · filed 2025-06-26(b)

The Court agrees that regulatory decisions are not acts of a business establishment.

Section 51(b) does not cover alleged harassment that occurred when the person was neither a customer nor seeking to use the business establishment’s services.

West v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority · filed 2025-09-05(b)

For example, the alleged actions in the TAC from August 10, 2021, February 24, 2022, and November 14, 2022, were not alleged to, and no evidence was shown that, they occurred when Plaintiff was a customer or presenting himself to the VTA to use its service.

Section 51(b) does not treat a nonpublic school as a business establishment when it provides a student free education under a school district contract rather than conducting a business transaction with the student or family.

C.R. v. Elk Grove Unified School District · filed 2025-05-15(b)

Effectively, CES was acting like a public school towards C.R. when it provided her education in 2019–2020 and was therefore not a “business” for the purposes of the Unruh Act.

Section 51 does not cover discrimination claims arising from an employer-employee or volunteer-sponsor relationship rather than a customer-proprietor relationship.

Khateeb · filed 2026-01-28

Khateeb’s relationship with KFHP more closely resembles an employer-employee or volunteer-sponsor relationship, which precludes Khateeb from bringing an Unruh claim against KFHP.

Section 51 covers a developer’s sale of houses to the public as a business establishment.

Burks v. Poppy Construction Co. · filed 1962-03-26

The Legislature used the words “all” and “of every kind whatsoever” in referring to business establishments covered by the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51), and the inclusion of these words, without any exception and without specification of particular kinds of enterprises, leaves no doubt that the term “business establishments” was used in the broadest sense reasonably possible. ... It is clear that defendants operated “business establishments” within the meaning of the term as used in the Unruh Act.

Section 51 does not treat every person who rents property as operating a business establishment; a landlord may be engaged in business without the record establishing that it operates one.

Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson · filed 1962-05-29

Applying these definitions in the case before this court we hold that plaintiff was engaged in “business.” Whether it operates a “business establishment,” however, is not readily apparent from the record before us. Clearly, not all persons who rent their property to others can be held to operate business establishments. Plainly, many do not.

Section 51 prohibits discrimination only in business establishments.

Hill v. Miller · filed 1966-06-08

Section 51 of the Civil Code, commonly known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination only where it occurs in ‘ ‘ business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Section 51 guarantees equal accommodations in inns and other public establishments; the court held that its policy did not extend to restrictions on the use of private real property.

Burkhardt v. Lofton · filed 1944-03-08

This section guarantees to all citizens equal accommodations of inns and certain other public establishments, subject to conditions applicable alike to all citizens. This, of course, establishes the policy of the state as far as it goes but no further than that. Limitations upon the use of real property such as the one under consideration have never been declared to be against public policy by legislative authority, so far as we are advised, and they have been uniformly upheld by the courts.

Section 51 does not cover private schools as places of public accommodation or amusement.

Reed v. Hollywood Professional School · filed 1959-04-13

In the court’s opinion a private school is not a place of public accommodation or amusement, nor is it a public place .of amusement or accommodation, within the meaning of Civil Code, sections 51 or 52.

Section 51 does not cover a gymnasium that limits access to applicants approved after an interview rather than admitting the public generally.

Gardner v. Vic Tanny Compton, Inc. · filed 1960-07-07

On the evidence the court could and did find that defendant’s facility was not within the operation of the statutes; that it was not a place of public accommodation or amusement. Membership in defendant’s facility was not open to the public in general. It was limited to those granted membership after an application, an interview, and satisfaction of the manager.

Section 51 treats a real estate broker’s legally required office as a business establishment.

Lee v. O'Hara · filed 1962-03-26

The office which a real estate broker is required by law to maintain at a specified location, and from which his business must be transacted, is a business establishment within the meaning of the TJnruh Act.

Section 51 applies to the services of real estate brokers.

Wagner v. O'Bannon · filed 1969-06-18

The business of a real estate broker is subject to the requirements of Civil Code sections 51 and 52.

Section 51 treats an owner's rental of triplex units for gain as a business establishment.

Swann v. Burkett · filed 1962-11-19

Under the above definitions the owner was engaged in “a permanent settled position” in renting his triplex units for “gain.”

Section 51 covers professional services, including a physician’s services, as services of a business establishment.

Washington v. Blampin · filed 1964-04-22

This reasoning points inevitably to the conclusion that the phrase ‘‘business establishments of every kind whatsoever” was intended to embrace professional services as well as real estate sales.

Section 51 covers a condominium owners association that performs business functions comparable to a landlord’s.

O'CONNOR v. Village Green Owners Assn. · filed 1983-05-09

In brief, the association performs all the customary business functions which in the traditional landlord-tenant relationship rest on the landlord’s shoulders. A theme running throughout the description of the association’s powers and duties is that its overall function is to protect and enhance the project’s economic value. Consistent with the Legislature’s intent to use the term “business establishments” in the broadest sense reasonably possible (Burks v. Poppy Construction Co., supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 468), we conclude that the Village Green Owners Association is a business establishment within the meaning of the act.

Section 51 covers a club whose recreational facilities are generally open to the community and are its principal activity.

Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, Inc. · filed 1985-10-21

On the particular record before us, there can be no doubt that the facility operated by the Boys’ Club comes within the scope of that principle: its recreational facilities are open to the community generally but closed to members of a particular group. These facilities are the Club’s principal activity and reason for existence. We therefore agree with the Santa Cruz Superior Court, which found that the Club is a “business establishment” for purposes of the Act.

Section 51 does not treat CAN-LA, a selective private association, as a business establishment on the record before the court.

Hart v. Cult Awareness Network · filed 1993-01-28

As the evidence before the trial court on the application for preliminary injunction was essentially undisputed, it is a matter of law whether, on that evidentiary record, Hart demonstrated that CAN-LA is a business establishment within the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Inasmuch as we conclude that Hart has not demonstrated that CAN-LA is such a business establishment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for preliminary injunction on the ground that Hart was not reasonably likely to succeed on the merits.

Whether an organization is a business establishment under Section 51 depends on its businesslike attributes, and an organization seeking summary judgment must present sufficient facts to show it falls outside the Act.

Harris v. Mothers Against Drunk Driving · filed 1995-11-14

Because M.A.D.D. proffered insufficient facts, it has not met its initial burden to show that it falls outside the ambit of the Act.

Section 51 covers medical groups, and a sole local provider’s alleged refusal to serve patients after they contacted a state medical regulator can state an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim.

Leach v. Drummond Medical Group, Inc. · filed 1983-06-24

A medical group which provides the only medical services within a given geographical area must be considered to perform a more important function than a local shopping center. The potential necessity for emergency medical treatment is in all respects as essential as the right to purchase food and conceivably may be much more critical in the maintenance of individual life. We therefore conclude that plaintiffs’ complaint did state a valid cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51 permits a sex discrimination claim against a nonprofit country club when the pleaded facts support treating it as a business establishment.

Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club · filed 1989-10-05

In summary, in light of our analysis of the principles which apply, we conclude that plaintiff has properly alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51 covers a private club whose regular business transactions with nonmembers are an integral part of its operations.

Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club · filed 1995-06-29

Because such “business transactions” with nonmembers are conducted on a regular and repeated basis and constitute an integral part of the club’s operations—supplementing the members’ own financial contributions and reducing the dues and fees that members otherwise would be required to pay in order to maintain the club’s facilities and operations —we conclude that the club falls within the very broad category of “business establishments” governed by the nondiscrimination mandate of section 51.

Section 51 does not apply to the Orange County Council’s scouting membership decisions because the council is not operating as a business establishment when making those decisions.

Randall v. Orange County Council · filed 1998-03-23

For the reasons set forth in Curran, supra, 17 Cal.4th 670, we conclude that defendant’s attributes and activities render the Unruh Civil Rights Act inapplicable to its membership decisions. Defendant not only is a charitable organization with a predominantly expressive social purpose unrelated to the promotion of the economic interests of its members, but offers to its members a program that is not the equivalent of a traditional place of public accommodation or amusement. Despite the organization’s limited business transactions with the public, defendant does not sell the right to participate in the activities it offers to its members. For these reasons, with regard to its membership decisions, defendant is not operating as a business establishment within the purview of California’s public accommodation statute.

Section 51 does not cover the Boy Scouts’ membership policies and decisions because the organization is not a business establishment within the Act.

Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America · filed 1998-03-23

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that, with regard to its membership policies and decisions, defendant does not fall within the category of “business establishments” as that language is used in the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51 does not apply to regulations adopted by the Department because the Department is not a business establishment under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation, Inc. v. Low · filed 2001-01-25

Since the Department is not a “business establishment” within the meaning of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (see ...), that law has no bearing on any regulation the Commissioner may adopt.

Section 51 does not treat a private religious school as a business establishment for decisions about its students merely because it charges tuition and conducts transactions with the public.

Doe v. California Lutheran High School Assn. · filed 2009-01-26

We hold only that the School established, beyond a triable issue of fact, that it is not a business establishment within the meaning of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51 covers mortgage lenders as business establishments, and denial of a mortgage loan can be a denial of a service under the Act.

Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. · filed 2007-06-12(b)

There is no question that Master Financial’s lending business constituted a “business establishment” and that Sisemore’s alleged denial of a mortgage loan was a denial of an “accommodation]], facility], privilege]], or service]]” under the Act.

Section 51(b)’s business-establishment requirement can be satisfied at the pleading stage by allegations that a marijuana grow operated as a business.

Coleman v. Shasta County · filed 2020-02-05(b)

Applying a broad interpretation and drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, the marijuana grow plausibly constitutes a business establishment.

Section 51 does not cover discrimination claims against police departments because they are not business establishments under the Unruh Act.

(PS) White v. City and County of West Sacramento · filed 2021-09-07

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination from “all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” in the State of California. See Cal. Civ. Code § 51. ... Although Plaintiff does identify several cases where public schools or school districts were determined to qualify as “business establishments,”7 he offers no cases — and this Court is aware of none — where the Unruh Civil Rights Act was applied to police departments. ... This Court concludes that the Unruh Act does not apply here.

Section 51 can cover a nonprofit organization as a business establishment; allegations about its staff, services, fees, and facilities can suffice at the pleading stage.

Melton v. Regional Center of the East Bay, Inc. · filed 2021-11-05(a)

The Court finds these allegations as to RCEB’s status as a busines establishment sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss.

Section 51(b) applies when an entity acts as a business establishment; law enforcement activity falls outside its scope, while collecting park entry fees may bring a public agency within it.

Sutton v. California Department of Parks and Recreation · filed 2025-01-17(b)

In responding to Walizer’s call, the Rangers were performing a law enforcement function, which is more akin to the traditional public functions that the California Supreme Court has found to fall outside the bounds of the Unruh Act than it is to a “commercial enterprise.” ... However, the Department of Parks and Recreation is differently situated with regard to Unruh Act liability, since it “collects and generate[s] revenue and fees from park users,” Parks Opp. at 10, an activity which could be considered akin to regular “business transactions with the public,” see Brennon B., 13 Cal. 5th at 681. Imposition of a per-person or per-car entry fee is, for example, arguably similar to ticketed entry to a movie theater or amusement park that is open to the general public. The Court concludes that this allegation is sufficient to withstand Parks’ motion to dismiss the claim against the Department.

Section 51 requires factual allegations that plausibly establish discrimination; alleging that a provider said the plaintiff had “no problems” before age 18 despite an autism diagnosis at 52 does not suffice.

(PS) Storman v. Alta Regional Center · filed 2020-12-28(b)

Here, plaintiff alleges age discrimination under the Unruh Act. Plaintiff alleges that defendant discriminated against him because defendant said plaintiff has “no problems” before age 18, and plaintiff says he was diagnosed with autism at age 52. These allegations fail to ... establish the elements of an Unruh Act violation.

A claim under Section 51 based on a cemetery’s no-portrait rule fails without evidence that the rule discriminates against the claimant because of Soviet origin.

Sinai Memorial Chapel v. Dudler · filed 1991-06-14

Appellant contends there is a triable issue of fact whether respondent’s no-portrait rule violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51). This contention lacks merit. As is stated more fully above, appellant has not presented any evidence that respondent discriminated against her because she was of Soviet origin.

Statistical evidence can support an inference that a business applies a facially neutral policy in a racially discriminatory manner, creating a triable issue under section 51.

Everett v. Superior Court · filed 2002-11-14

We conclude the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication against plaintiff in his Unruh Civil Rights Act cause of action was improper. Plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to support an inference that Magic Mountain’s facially neutral line-cutting policy is applied in a discriminatory manner. Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact on the issue. That is sufficient to defeat this motion for summary adjudication.

Section 51 requires evidence of discrimination to sustain an Unruh Act claim, including a claim based on discrimination against another person.

McDonald v. Coldwell Banker · filed 2008-09-09(b)

Since there is no evi- dence of discrimination against McDonald, her Unruh Act claims fail. Because Coleman’s Unruh Act claim rests on McDonald’s Unruh Act dis- crimination claim, the lack of any evidence of discrimination is fatal to that claim as well.

Section 51 permits a damages claim based on a structural access barrier when the barrier results from an intentional violation of an applicable disability access law.

Coronado v. Cobblestone Village Community Rentals, L.P. · filed 2008-06-04(d)

It follows from the above discussion that a cause of action in which a plaintiff seeks damages for disability discrimination under section 51 based on a structural or architectural barrier requires a showing that the barrier existed due to an intentional violation of an applicable law relating to disability access standards.

Section 51(f) permits statutory damages for an ADA access violation without proof of intentional discrimination.

Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. · filed 2009-06-11(f)

We conclude that a plaintiff proceeding under section 51, subdivision (f) may obtain statutory damages on proof of an ADA access violation without the need to demonstrate additionally that the discrimination was intentional.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA accessibility violation a violation of the Unruh Act.

Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc. · filed 2014-01-03(f)

Having proven that three barriers violate the ADA, Rodriguez has therefore established that those same barriers violate both state statutes as well.

Section 51(f) makes a cognizable ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Act.

Vogel v. Rite Aid Corp. · filed 2014-01-17(f)

Because Vogel’s complaint alleges a cognizable ADA claim, he has also properly alleged that Knight violated the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Cohen v. City of Culver City · filed 2014-06-06(f)

Similarly, a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f); see Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 208 P.3d 623, 625 (Cal. 2009) (holding that no showing of intentional discrimination is required to state an Unruh Act claim on the basis of an ADA violation). Because the City is not entitled to summary judgment on Cohen’s ADA claim, the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the City on Cohen’s claims under the DPA and the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of an individual’s rights under the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Montano v. Bonnie Brae Convalescent Hospital, Inc. · filed 2015-01-07(f)

Defendant has also violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, as “[a] violation of the right of any individual under the [ADA] shall also constitute a violation of this section.” Cal. Civ.Code § 51(f).

Section 51(f) makes any ADA violation an automatic violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Kalani v. Starbucks Corp. · filed 2015-02-25(f)

Under the Unruh Act, any violation of the ADA is an automatic violation of the Unruh Act.

Under § 51(f), a violation of a person’s rights under the ADA also violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

California Foundation for Independent Living Centers v. County of Sacramento · filed 2015-11-04(f)

Violations of the rights of any person under the ADA are also violations of the Unruh Act, see Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f), and the CDPA, see id. § 54(c). The plaintiffs’ motion is granted as to the County’s liability for the gate counters under these laws, and the County’s motion is denied.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of an individual’s rights under the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Rose May Kalani v. Starbucks Coffee Co. · filed 2017-06-28(f)

Because a “violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 shall also constitute a violation” of the Unruh Act, see Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f), and Starbucks Company does not appeal two of the violations found by the district court, we affirm the Unruh Act damages award.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of an individual’s rights under the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson v. Kohanbash Century Plaza, LLC · filed 2019-08-06(f)

The Unruh Act provides that “[a] violation of the right of any individual under the [ADA] shall also constitute a violation of” the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes any violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson v. Ajay Oil Inc. · filed 2019-08-08(f)

Significantly, any violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

An ADA violation necessarily violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act under section 51(f).

Hopson v. Singh · filed 2019-09-11(f)

Significantly, any violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f); see also Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal. 4th 661, 664 (2009).

An ADA access violation also supports an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim under Section 51.

Arroyo, Jr. v. J.S.T. LLC · filed 2019-10-03(f)

As Plaintiff has stated a cause of action entitling him to relief under the ADA, Plaintiff has also stated a claim entitling him to relief under the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation an Unruh Act violation, so facts supporting an ADA claim also support an Unruh Act claim.

Kraus v. Rattu · filed 2020-02-03(f)

As expressly provided by statute, a violation of the ADA also constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51 (f); see also Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal. 4th 661, 664-65 (Cal. 2009). Here, because plaintiff’s complaint alleges a prima facie claim under the ADA, plaintiff has also alleged facts supporting a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson v. Patel · filed 2020-02-04(f)

Significantly, any violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. ... Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is based on defendants’ alleged violation of the ADA. ... Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to the $4,000 in statutory damages he seeks for defendants’ violation of the Unruh Act.

An ADA violation also violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act under section 51(f).

Johnson v. Patel · filed 2020-04-14(f)

Moreover, said defendants are subject to the Unruh Act, as “[a] violation of the right of any individual under the [ADA] . . . also constitute[s] a violation of [the Unruh Act].” See Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, so a properly alleged ADA claim also supports an Unruh Act claim.

Johnson v. Singh · filed 2020-05-28(f)

Here, because plaintiff’s complaint properly alleges a prima facie claim under the ADA, plaintiff has also properly alleged facts supporting a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

An ADA violation is a per se violation of Section 51(f), for which a plaintiff may recover damages.

Sullivan v. Storer Transit Systems · filed 2020-06-16(f)

A violation of the ADA is a per se violation of both the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f), and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(d), both of which allow a plaintiff to recover damages for such a violation.

An ADA violation also violates Section 51, so a sufficiently alleged ADA claim establishes an Unruh Act claim.

Langer v. Ocios LLC · filed 2020-06-23(f)

A violation of the ADA is also necessarily a violation of the Unruh Act. ... Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an ADA claim, see supra Section II.B.1, so he also has alleged an Unruh claim.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Chavez v. Won · filed 2020-09-01(f)

If Plaintiff establishes a claim for a violation of the ADA, he also establishes a violation of the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes any violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson v. Shree Rang, LLC · filed 2020-09-01(f)

Significantly, any violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Under Section 51(f), a violation of the ADA is also a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Spikes v. Mann · filed 2020-09-09(f)

A violation of the ADA is also necessarily a violation of the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Act.

(PS)Williams v. Amazon.Com, Inc. · filed 2020-10-06(f)

Furthermore,any violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) does not support an Unruh Act claim based on an ADA violation when the plaintiff fails to state a claim under the ADA.

Kohn v. State Bar of California · filed 2020-10-27(f)

Because plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of the ADA, it follows that he cannot state a claim for violation of section 51(f).

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation an Unruh Act violation, so a visitor’s motivation does not defeat an Unruh Act claim based on that violation.

Johnson v. Rehman · filed 2020-11-24(f)

Nor was Johnson’s motivation relevant to his Unruh Act claim, because “a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act.” Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 701 (9th Cir. 2014) (first citing Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f); and then citing Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 208 P.3d 623, 625 (Cal. 2009)).

Section 51(f) makes an established ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Chavez v. Won · filed 2020-12-15(f)

If Plaintiff establishes a claim for a violation of the ADA, he also establishes a violation of the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation an Unruh Act violation.

Love v. Shirtique, Inc. · filed 2021-04-12(f)

This barrier, as a violation of the ADA, also counts as one violation of the Unruh Act, and therefore warrants a statutory award of $4,000.

Section 51(f) treats facts establishing an ADA violation as establishing a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

(PS) Reedy v. State of California · filed 2021-04-14(f)

If plaintiff states a valid claim for a violation of the ADA, those same facts will necessarily state a valid claim for a violation of the Unruh Act contained in Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a per se violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Arroyo v. Ashford Newark LP · filed 2021-07-01(f)

A violation of the ADA is a per se violation of the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) permits an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim based on an ADA violation without proof of intentional discrimination.

Young v. Shoe Palace Corporation · filed 2021-07-02(f)

While a claim under the UCRA requires a plaintiff to allege an intentional act by a defendant, a showing of intentional discrimination is not required when a plaintiff brings a UCRA claim based on a violation of the ADA.

Section 51(f) treats an ADA violation as a violation of the Unruh Act, so an Unruh Act claim based on an ADA claim may proceed when the ADA claim survives dismissal.

Johnson v. Rando · filed 2021-07-15(f)

A violation of the ADA constitutes a per se violation of the Unruh Act. ... Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim on the same grounds as the ADA claim. Since the Court has determined Plaintiff's ADA claim may properly go forward, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Act.

Castillo-Antonio v. Mata · filed 2021-07-16(f)

The Eitel factors also weigh in favor of default judgment: the complaint adequately alleges violations of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a violation of the ADA automatically constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act, and the defendants are aware of the lawsuit and have communicated with Castillo-Antonio about it.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Act without requiring intentional discrimination.

Johnson v. Nuoc Mia Vien Dong 2, LLC · filed 2021-07-30(f)

A violation of the ADA is a per se violation of the Unruh Act, see Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f), regardless of whether the discrimination was intentional, see Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 208 P.3d 623, 625 (Cal. 2009); Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, since Johnson has adequately pleaded an ADA violation, he has also adequately pleaded an Unruh Act violation.

Section 51(f) makes an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, so an adequately pleaded ADA claim also states an Unruh Act claim.

Love v. iCustom Clothing LLC · filed 2021-08-02(f)

As to Plaintiff’s UCRA claim, the UCRA provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of the UCRA. See Cal. Civ. Code, § 51(f). ... Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately stated an ADA claim, the Court also concludes that Plaintiff has adequately stated a UCRA claim.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson v. 12 N Park Victoria LLC · filed 2021-08-02(f)

As to Plaintiff’s UCRA claim, the UCRA provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of the UCRA.

Section 51(f) makes a violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Yates v. East Side Union High School District · filed 2021-08-18(f)

The elements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are similar, see id., and a violation of the ADA is by definition a violation of the Unruh Act, see Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

A plaintiff who states an ADA accessibility claim also states an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim.

Trujillo v. Harsarb Inc · filed 2021-08-26

As Plaintiff has stated a cause of action entitling him to relief under the ADA, Plaintiff has also stated a claim entitling him to relief under the Unruh Act.

Section 51(f) treats an adequately alleged ADA violation as satisfying the elements of an Unruh Act claim.

Johnson v. An Khang Mi Gia · filed 2021-12-14(f)

Thus, because Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an ADA claim, he has also alleged the requisite elements for an Unruh Act claim.

Under section 51(f), an ADA violation also violates the Unruh Act, so a sufficiently alleged ADA claim can support an Unruh Act claim.

Gastelum v. HEES II · filed 2022-01-27(f)

A violation of the ADA is also necessarily a violation of the Unruh Act. Id. § 51(f); Vogel, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 1011. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff states an ADA claim for purposes of surviving screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds Plaintiff also satisfactorily alleges an Unruh Act claim.

Section 51 treats a sufficiently pleaded ADA public accommodation violation as a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Whitaker v. URBN US Retail LLC · filed 2022-01-28(f)

Thus, to the extent Whitaker has stated a claim under the ADA, he also has stated a claim under the Unruh Act.