Davis v. Ma
848 F. Supp. 2d 1105
| C.D. Cal. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff A1 Davis filed ADA, Unruh Civil Rights Act, and IIED claims in October 2010 against Burger King entities and individuals.
- Defendants moved to strike SLAPP claims in December 2010; the court denied in January 2011.
- Defendants moved to strike Paragraph 21 for privileged communications; the court granted in April 2011.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on November 28, 2011; Plaintiff opposed in January 2012 with declarations and SGI.
- On December 28, 2008, Plaintiff, with a 13-week-old puppy, entered Burger King and was denied entry due to a “no animals” policy.
- Court grants Defendants’ summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice; IIED and ADA/Unruh claims are resolved against Plaintiff as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has a qualifying disability under the ADA | Davis suffers degenerative back problems affecting walking/sleeping; doctor notes support disability. | Disability is not shown as temporary/insufficiently proven; requires more concrete proof of substantial limitation. | Triable issue of fact exists regarding disability. |
| Whether the puppy constitutes a trained service animal under the ADA | Puppy was intended to assist and held service dog tags; dog is trained to help with disability. | Puppy was not fully trained; tag alone does not prove trained service animal; vaccinated status and training lacking. | No triable issue; puppy not shown to be a trained service animal. |
| Whether public health/ direct threat defenses justify denial of entry | Not asserted as a decisive issue by plaintiff; ADA defenses may apply if applicable. | Public health/direct threat defenses could apply given rabies area and puppy status. | Court need not reach defenses; ADA claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Whether there is liability under the Unruh Civil Rights Act | Discrimination by denial of accommodation expands to Unruh Act liability. | Same standards as ADA; lack of service-animal qualification defeats liability. | Unruh Act liability not established; ADA-based failure to accommodate undermines claim. |
| Whether plaintiff’s IIED claim survives | Denied entry and treatment could be extreme and outrageous. | Defendants did not act with intent to cause distress; conduct not extreme or outrageous. | IIED claim fails as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Head v. Glacier Nw., Inc., 418 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff's testimony may raise triable issue on impairment; conclusory statements insufficient)
- Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1996) (declaration must support factual dispute and cannot rely on self-serving statements)
- Lentini v. California Center for the Arts,, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2004) (certified service dog policy discussed; ADA compliance considerations)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards for ADA service animal discrimination analyzed)
- Bronk v. Ineichen, 54 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 1995) (service animal training and related discrimination standards cited)