Miller v. Corporaton
15 Cal. App. 5th 214
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joey Miller (intellectual disability, autism; IQ ~50–75) acquired Roxy, a dog purchased from a pet store in mid‑2012; Roxy had basic obedience training and some subsequent family/professional training efforts.
- Miller and his stepfather Joseph Scribner entered two Seafood City markets in August 2012 with Roxy; employees refused entry citing a no‑pets policy and the group left.
- Miller sued under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Disabled Persons Act (DPA), and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging wrongful denial of access with a service dog and that Roxy was a service‑animal‑in‑training.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Roxy was not a fully trained service dog, the visit was not for training, and neither Miller nor Scribner were authorized/capable trainers; trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants.
- On appeal, Miller argued Roxy had meaningful service training and that the DPA permitted bringing animals‑in‑training into public accommodations for training; the appellate court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Unruh/ADA protections extend to service‑animals‑in‑training | Roxy had meaningful service training and thus qualified as a service animal | Roxy was not a fully trained service animal at the time; ADA requires completed training | Unruh (which incorporates ADA) protects only fully trained service dogs; animals‑in‑training are not covered under Unruh/ADA |
| Whether DPA permits entry of service‑animals‑in‑training and who may bring them | DPA allows Miller (disabled) or his authorized designee (Scribner) to bring Roxy for training | Defendants: trip was not for training; Scribner lacked credentials/authority to train | DPA does allow animals‑in‑training entry for training, but only if brought by the disabled person or a trainer who is credentialed/authorized by education or experience; Miller failed to prove the visit was for training or that he/Scribner were authorized trainers |
| Whether Miller had capacity or evidence to train Roxy unaided | Miller contended he was training Roxy himself | Defendants showed Miller’s cognitive limitations and lack of training credentials or evidence of prior training experience | Miller did not produce substantial evidence he could train Roxy alone; factfinder could not plausibly find he trained the dog during the visit |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress based on denial of access | Miller alleged emotional harm from refusal of entry | Defendants argued no statutory violation and no outrageous conduct; company had non‑discrimination policy | Claim depended on statutory violation; because Unruh/DPA claims failed, emotional‑distress claim failed as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661 (Unruh Act incorporates ADA principles for disability discrimination)
- Davis v. Ma, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (puppy not a service animal; in‑training animals not covered under ADA)
- Elsner v. Uveges, 34 Cal.4th 915 (harmonizing related statutory provisions in construction)
- Wilson v. Hynek, 207 Cal. App. 4th 999 (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)