Flowers v. Prasad
190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 33
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs John and Seth Flowers sued Valley India Café and its owners after they were allegedly denied service because John used a licensed service dog. Complaint pleaded Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act (DPA) claims, plus tort claims.
- Defendants demurred to the Unruh Act claim, arguing the DPA (which expressly addresses service dogs) was the exclusive remedy for such claims. The trial court sustained the demurrer as to the Unruh Act and later granted summary adjudication on the same ground.
- After those adverse rulings and before trial, plaintiffs sought dismissal with prejudice to expedite appeal; the trial court entered judgment of dismissal. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court treated the dismissal as appealable because it followed adverse rulings and was intended to fast-track review.
- The central legal question: whether the Unruh Act and the DPA are irreconcilably inconsistent so that service-dog–related disability discrimination claims may be asserted only under the DPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff alleging denial of access due to a service dog may bring claims under both the Unruh Act and the DPA | Flowers: Both statutes can apply; plaintiff may plead Unruh Act claims for service-dog discrimination in addition to DPA remedies | Defendants: The DPA is the specific statute governing service dogs and displaces the Unruh Act for such claims | Reversed: statutes are harmonizable; plaintiffs may assert Unruh Act claims as well as DPA claims, subject to statutory limits (e.g., no double recovery of damages) |
| Whether the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice was appealable | Flowers: Dismissal followed adverse rulings and was sought to expedite appellate review, thus appealable | Defendants: The dismissal was voluntary and therefore not appealable | Held: Dismissal was appealable under the exception for voluntary dismissals taken to expedite review after adverse rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal.4th 160 (2007) (Unruh Act’s purpose to eradicate arbitrary discrimination in business establishments)
- Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661 (2009) (Unruh Act and DPA both incorporate ADA protections; overlap between statutes)
- Molski v. Arciero Wine Group, 164 Cal.App.4th 786 (2008) (Unruh Act and DPA provide alternative remedies for disability-access claims)
- Austin v. Valverde, 211 Cal.App.4th 546 (2012) (voluntary dismissal after adverse ruling to expedite appeal is treated as appealable)
- State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 940 (2015) (statutory harmonization principle: specific controls only when irreconcilable)
- Turner v. Assn. of American Medical Colleges, 193 Cal.App.4th 1047 (2011) (discussion of remedies and attorney fee structures under Unruh Act and DPA)
- Lentini v. California Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2004) (ADA requires reasonable modifications to permit service dogs in public accommodations)