Ruiz v. Musclewood Inv. Props., LLC, 28 Cal. App. 5th 15

Background

Oscar Ruiz, a legally blind man who uses a guide dog (Carbon), alleged defendants Edward Lopez and Musclewood Investment Properties, LLC maintained a loose guard dog that repeatedly attacked or threatened his guide dog while Ruiz walked on the public sidewalk adjacent to defendants' property.
Attacks or threatening incidents occurred on six occasions between 2013 and 2015; Ruiz complained to defendants and animal control but the dog remained uncontrolled and the gate was left open.
Ruiz stopped walking that portion of the sidewalk because his guide dog became fearful, aggressive, and unable to reliably perform guide duties.
Ruiz sued under the Disabled Persons Act (DPA) (Civ. Code §§ 54, 54.1, 54.3), and for negligence; defendants demurred to the DPA cause of action and moved to strike remedies.
The trial court sustained the demurrer as to the DPA cause of action without leave to amend and granted the motion to strike; Ruiz appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed the demurrer ruling and the order granting the motion to strike, remanding for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim under Civ. Code § 54.3 for interference with admittance to or enjoyment of public facilities	Ruiz alleged his guide dog’s functioning was prevented by repeated attacks, causing loss of use/enjoyment of the sidewalk; alleged facts sufficed to show interference	Dem defendants argued Ruiz failed to allege denial of "equal access" and relied on earlier pleading that dogs attacked others too; also argued section 54.1 requirements apply	Held: § 54.3 claim stated. Section 54.3 does not require pleading unequal access (unlike § 54.1); allegations of attacks and resulting loss of sidewalk use suffice to plead interference
Whether intent is required under § 54.3 and whether it was alleged	Ruiz argued intent is not required or can be inferred from repeated attacks and defendants’ knowledge	Defendants implied intent element or insisted on showing discriminatory conduct	Held: Court need not decide whether intent is required generally; here repeated attacks plus defendants’ knowledge permit a reasonable inference of intent
Whether Ruiz had standing to recover damages under § 54.3 despite not seeking defendants’ services	Ruiz argued Reycraft does not bar damages when plaintiff presented himself at a public place (sidewalk) and was actually interfered with on particular occasions	Defendants relied on Reycraft and Urhausen to argue standing requires presenting to a business to use its services	Held: Ruiz has standing. Reycraft’s standing language requires showing one presented oneself at a public place to use it in its typical manner and was actually denied/interfered with on a particular occasion; walking on a public sidewalk met that test
Whether the trial court properly struck damages, treble damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief	Ruiz contended remedies under § 54.3 were available (actual damages, treble damages, attorney fees), but injunctive relief is not authorized under § 54.3	Defendants moved to strike remedy prayers as unavailable if DPA claim failed	Held: Because the DPA cause of action under § 54.3 was adequately pleaded, striking damages, treble damages, and attorney fees was reversible error; injunctive relief under § 54.3 is not available and Ruiz did not contest that ruling on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (standards for demurrer review)
Evans v. City of Berkeley, 38 Cal.4th 1 (pleaded facts accepted as true on demurrer)
Reycraft v. Lee, 177 Cal.App.4th 1211 (discussion of standing under § 54.3 and requirement to show actual denial/interference on a particular occasion)
Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc., 155 Cal.App.4th 254 (standing/§ 54.1 discussion)
Schroeder v. Irvine City Council, 97 Cal.App.4th 174 (canon against judicially inserting requirements into statute)