Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998)

(Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 520-521 (Hankins); People ex rel.

Council of Cal. Civil Jury Instructions, 10 CACI No. 3060 (Unruh Civil Rights Act—Essential Factual Elements) (2021); 11 Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc., 242 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1399 (2015). 12 “Although the Unruh Act proscribes ‘any form of arbitrary discrimination,’ certain 13 types of discrimination have been denominated ‘reasonable” and, therefore, not 14 arbitrary.” Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 520 (1998) 15 (internal citations omit…

Id. 4 ¶ 35 (“Despite this knowledge [that the Restaurant was inaccessible to Plaintiff], 5 Defendants maintain its premises in an inaccessible form, and Defendants have 6 failed to take action to correct these barriers”); cf. Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, 7 Inc., 63 Cal. App. 4th 510, 518 (1998) (allegation that restaurant acted with 8 knowledge of the effect its conduct had on people with disabilities was sufficient to 9 plead intentional discrimination).

(See Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 518-519, fn. 2 .) We will disregard this improperly cited authority. 14 issue is not properly before us on appeal.

(See Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 518 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ].) We will disregard this improperly cited authority.

As well, ADA section 501’s express preservation of the several states’ authority to regulate in the area of disability discrimination negates any argument that Congress intended to occupy the field of disability rights protection. 11 See Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 526 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ] (upholding injunctive relief for a plaintiff who never attempted to use a noncompliant wheelchair lift because the plaintiff was still “at least pot…

Hankins, 63 Cal.App.4th at 518, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 .

Health and Safety Code section 19955 defines “ ‘public accommodation’ ” to mean “a building, structure, facility, complex, or improved area which is used by the general public and shall include auditoriums, hospitals, theaters, restaurants, hotels, motels, stadiums, and convention centers.” The structural access standards promulgated in connection with Health and Safety Code section 19955 et seq. and Government Code section 4450 et seq. “ ‘give meaning to the public accommod…

(E.g., Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s LLC (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 571, 580-581 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 144 ] [claim that store did not provide adequate pathways, making merchandise inaccessible to persons using wheelchairs or other mobility devices]; Madden v. Del Taco, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 294, 296 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 313 ] [concrete trash container that blocked restaurant entrance and caused wheelchair-bound plaintiff to fall]; Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants,…

(Marsh, at pp. 886-888.) Marsh found that specific legislation mandating building standards governed alleged architectural barriers, not the DPA’s general guarantee of “full and equal access.” {Marsh, at pp. 886-888.) This district Court of Appeal has noted, in addressing a different aspect of the DPA, that Marsh “may establish a rule that a structural impediment to access does not violate [the DPA] unless the impediment also violates a structural access standard.” (Hankins …

In this case, “there is no basis for concluding that the trial court relied on [the witness’s] alleged legal conclusions . . . .” (Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 530 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ].) Instead, it appears that “the relevant portion of [his] testimony [was] his percipient testimony.” (Ibid.) In ruling on the objection by appellant’s trial counsel to the proffered testimony, the trial court acknowledged appellant’s “right to object to M…

See Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc., 218 Cal.App.3d 168, 176-180 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 804 (1990); Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 63 Cal.App.4th 510 , 520 n. 4, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 (1998) (“In contrast to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a violation of section 54.1(a) does not require intent.”) (citing Donald); Boemio v. Love’s Restaurant, 954 F.Supp. 204, 207-08 (S.D.Cal.1997) (citing Donald); Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 433, 438 (N.D.Cal.1994) (cit…

See Koebke, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 565 , 115 P.3d at 1227-29 . 4 GLAAD’s reliance on Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 63 Cal.App.4th 510 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 (1998) is misplaced.

See Koebke, 115 P.3d at 1227–29.4 GLAD’s reliance on Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 63 Cal. App. 4th 510 (1998) is misplaced.

However, a plaintiff seeking to establish a cause of action for damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act “must plead and prove intentional discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of the Act.” (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1175 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ], italics added; see Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 518 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ] [damages under § 52 require intentional vio…

See Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 520-24 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 (1998) (denial of access to accessible facilities when they are available can be cognizable under the CDPA, as the statute covers both “policy impediments” and “structural impediments”).

“As the agency directed by Congress to issue implementing regulations [citation], to render technical assistance explaining the responsibilities of covered individuals and institutions [citation], and to enforce Title III in court [citation], the [Justice] Department’s views are entitled to deference. [Citation.]” (Bragdon v. Abbott (1998) 524 U.S. 624, 646 [ 141 L.Ed.2d 540 , 118 S.Ct. 2196 ]; accord, Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 510, 524 [ 7…