Plaintiff, who is disabled, was denied service at defendant’s restaurant due to presence of plaintiff’s service dog. After hearing various motions, the trial court concluded plaintiff could assert a claim under the Disabled Persons Act [DPA; Civil Code section 54055.3], but not under the Unruh Civil Rights Act [Civil Code sections 51, 52]. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action, which ordinarily does not result in an appealable judgment or order, but the Court of Appeal permitted the appeal, stating that “appellate courts treat a voluntary dismissal with prejudice as an appealable order if it was entered after an adverse ruling by the trial court in order to expedite an appeal of the ruling.” Noting the DPA specifically states its remedies are nonexclusive, the Court of Appeal reversed, stating plaintiff could proceed under both statutes. (Flowers v. Prasad (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; July 17, 2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 930 [190 Cal.Rptr.3d 33].Disabled Plaintiff May Proceed Under Both Disabled Persons Act And The Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Plaintiff, who is disabled, was denied service at defendant’s restaurant due to presence of plaintiff’s service dog. After hearing various motions, the trial court concluded plaintiff could assert a claim under the Disabled Persons Act [DPA; Civil Code section 54055.3], but not under the Unruh Civil Rights Act [Civil Code sections 51, 52]. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action, which ordinarily does not result in an appealable judgment or order, but the Court of Appeal permitted the appeal, stating that “appellate courts treat a voluntary dismissal with prejudice as an appealable order if it was entered after an adverse ruling by the trial court in order to expedite an appeal of the ruling.” Noting the DPA specifically states its remedies are nonexclusive, the Court of Appeal reversed, stating plaintiff could proceed under both statutes. (Flowers v. Prasad (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; July 17, 2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 930 [190 Cal.Rptr.3d 33].