California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 54 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices, public facilities, and other public places.

(b)For purposes of this section:

(1)“Disability” means any mental or physical disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.

(2)“Medical condition” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 12926 of the Government Code.

(c)A violation of the right of an individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) also constitutes a violation of this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 480 cases (308 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Patrice L. Goldman, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Stand. Ins. Co., 341 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patrice L. Goldman, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Stand. Ins. Co., 341 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 8× “This amendment brought the Unruh Act into accord with California Civil Code section 54 et seq., which entitled “[bjlind persons, visually handicapped persons, deaf persons, and other physically disabled persons” to full and equal access to common carriers, places of public…”

Mundy v. Lenc, 203 Cal. App. 4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) and then settles and releases all known and unknown claims and waives the protection of Civil Code section 1542, the disabled person is contractually barred from suing the business owner in a second lawsuit…”

Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc., 63 P.3d 220 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 2× “6), by business establishments providing accommodations, facilities and services and subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 54), by entities employing, training or credentialling teachers (Ed.”

The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach CA2/8, 2 Cal. App. 5th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “87 and the February 2012 ban violated six statutes: Civil Code section 54 (the Disabled Persons Act or DPA); Civil Code section 51 (the Unruh Civil Rights Act); the ADA; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ( 29 U.”

Turner v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “” (Civ. Code, § 54, subd. (b)(1).) Under the DPA, “Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals,…”

Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011). “Oliver's complaint alleged violations of the Disabled Persons Act, see Cal. Civil Code § 54 , and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, see Cal.”

Robin Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “, and the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), Cal. Civ.Code §§ 54 et seq. The City removed the case to federal court, and moved to dismiss Fortyune’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”

Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2007). · cites it 3× “com, for plaintiffs’ claims arising under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. and the Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code §§ 54 et seq.”

Matt Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, 724 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “1 The other counts allege violations under (1) California Civil Code § 54; (2) the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal.”

Roman v. Bre Props., Inc., 237 Cal. App. 4th 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Code, §51), Civil Code section 54, commonly called the Disabled Persons Act (DPA), and Business and Professions Code section 17200 (the unfair competition law; UCL), as well as negligence (based on the duty to operate rental premises in a manner that was free of discrimination…”

Young v. Facebook, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 2× “, the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 54, et seq., and state-law contract and negligence claims.”

Lieber v. MacY's West, Inc., 80 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 5× “California has similar disability rights legislation embodied in Cal. Civil Code §§ 54 , et seq. Cal. Civil Code § 54 reads: “.”

Show all 480 citing cases →

— Cal. Civil Code § 54(a) — 11 cases

Org. for the Advancement of Minorities With Disabilities Suing on Behalf of Its Members v. Brick Oven Restaurant, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (S.D. Cal. 2005).

Celano v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 544 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Cortez v. City of Porterville, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1160 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

Publius v. Boyer-Vine, 237 F. Supp. 3d 997 (E.D. Cal. 2017).

— Cal. Civil Code § 54(b) — 1 case

Patrice L. Goldman, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Stand. Ins. Co., 341 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003). “This amendment brought the Unruh Act into accord with California Civil Code section 54 et seq., which entitled “[bjlind persons, visually handicapped persons, deaf persons, and other physically disabled persons” to full and equal access to common carriers, places of public…”

— Cal. Civil Code § 54(b)(1) — 1 case

— Cal. Civil Code § 54(c) — 15 cases

James Shayler v. 1310 Pch, LLC, 51 F.4th 1015 (9th Cir. 2022).

Robin Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). “, and the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), Cal. Civ.Code §§ 54 et seq. The City removed the case to federal court, and moved to dismiss Fortyune’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”

Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 347 F. Supp. 2d 860 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 779 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2015).

Hubbard v. Sobreck, LLC, 554 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2009).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.