Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01239/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01239-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WILSON,

NO. CIV.S-05-1239 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

HARIA and GOGRI CORP. dba

JACK-IN-THE-BOX #551; OPT

GOLDEN HILLS VAC, LLC,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment. A critical issue to the resolution of that motion is

whether the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code

§§ 51, 52, authorizes damages for unintentional violations of the

ADA. In Gunther v. Lin, 144 Cal. App. 4th 223 (4th Dist. October

26, 2006), the California Court of Appeals recently held that the

Unruh Act does not authorize damages in such a situation. 

A petition for review was filed in Gunther on November 30,

2006. Pursuant to Rule 28.2(b) of the California Rules of Court,

the California Supreme Court has 60 days in which to decide whether

Case 2:05-cv-01239-LKK -DAD Document 49 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

to grant or deny the petition, and it may extend this time period

by no more than an additional 30 days. If the California Supreme

Court grants review in Gunther, it would render premature any

ruling by this court on the pending motion.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby STAYED pending the

California Supreme Court’s determination of whether to grant review

in Gunther. The parties are ordered to inform the court within ten

(10) days of that determination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01239-LKK -DAD Document 49 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2