Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Unruh Act

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Liapes v. Facebook, Inc. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 910

Liapes, a 46-year-old woman, alleged an actionable claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code 51.5, 51) for intentionally discriminating on the basis of gender and age in targeting (and allowing advertisers to target) their ads to particular audiences of Facebook users based on chosen characteristics, including age and gender.  She claimed that as a result of the ad… Read More

Martin v. THI E-Commerce, LLC (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 521

This decision holds that a stand-alone website, not acting as the gateway to a physical location is not a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Hence, maintaining a stand-alone website in a format that is not readable by standard programs for the visually impaired is not an ADA violation.  And, other than  extreme… Read More

Thanh Vo v. Choi, No. 20-55737, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26354 (9th Cir. Sep. 21, 2022)

Following Arroyo v. Rosas (9th Cir. 2021) 19 F.4th 1202, this decision affirms the district court's order declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in this disability discrimination case.  California's procedural restrictions on disability discrimination suits under Civ. Code 52(a) and 55.56 are an exceptional circumstance warranting the refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (which would allow plaintiffs the chance to… Read More

Arroyo v. Rosas, No. 19-55974, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36510 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021)

Under 28 USC 1367(c)(4), the district court may decline jurisdiction of state law claims  if in extraordinary circumstances there are compelling circumstances for declining jurisdiction.  This decision affirms the district court's ruling that there were extraordinary circumstances in this ADA, physical barriers case, because California's Legislature had amended Civ. Code 52(a) and 55.56 to discourage repeat litigation by a small… Read More