Miller v. Fortune Commercial Corporation
B271214
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joey Miller (intellectual disability and autism, IQ 50–75) acquired a young dog, Roxy, in mid‑2012; family and a Petco instructor provided some training but Roxy was not fully trained as a service dog by August 2012.
- Miller and his stepfather Scribner entered two Seafood City markets with Roxy in August 2012; store employees asked them to leave on the basis that Roxy was a pet.
- Miller sued owners/operators and individual employees asserting (1) Unruh Civil Rights Act violations, (2) Disabled Persons Act (DPA) violations, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Defendants argued Roxy was not a fully trained service dog, Miller and Scribner lacked authority or capacity to train a service dog, and the visits were not for training purposes; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal the court affirmed: under ADA/Unruh, only fully trained dogs qualify as service animals; under the DPA, persons authorized to train service dogs must be credentialed by education or experience; plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence that Roxy was trained, that the store visits were for training, or that Miller or Scribner were authorized trainers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dog in the process of training qualifies as a "service animal" under Unruh/ADA | Roxy had meaningful task training (e.g., preventing wandering) and thus was a service animal | ADA/Unruh require the dog to be already trained; partial training insufficient | Dog‑in‑training is not a "service animal" under the ADA/Unruh; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether DPA permits bringing a service‑animal‑in‑training into public accommodations | Miller argued DPA allows disabled persons or authorized persons (including his stepfather) to bring a dog‑in‑training | DPA allows only disabled persons, licensed guide‑dog trainers, or persons "authorized" to train (i.e., credentialed by education/experience) | DPA allows dogs‑in‑training only when brought by the disabled person or a credentialed/authorized trainer; Miller failed to show such authorization or capacity |
| Whether Miller (disabled) or Scribner was authorized/capable to train Roxy | Miller said family and some training occurred and Scribner could be authorized by Miller to train Roxy | Defendants pointed to evidence that the trip was spontaneous to buy seafood, Miller lacked capacity/training experience, and Scribner lacked credentials | No substantial evidence Miller had capacity to train alone or that Scribner was credentialed; not entitled to DPA protection for bringing Roxy into store |
| Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress claim stands independent of statutory claims | Miller relied on alleged statutory violations and store conduct causing severe distress | Defendants showed store policy and lack of intentional discriminatory conduct; emotional distress claim depends on statutory violation | Emotional distress claim fails because underlying Unruh/DPA claims fail; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (standards for summary judgment)
- 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) (dog‑in‑training not a service animal for ADA purposes)
- Artiglio v. Corning Inc., 18 Cal.4th 604 (consideration of all evidence on summary judgment)
- Alejo v. Torlakson, 212 Cal.App.4th 768 (statutory interpretation steps)
- Wilson v. Hynek, 207 Cal.App.4th 999 (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)