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-04-633 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v.

 

PIER 1 IMPORTS (US), INC;

and MELLON/PIER 1 PROPERTIES

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I,

Defendants.

 /

STEVE EIDEN,

NO. CIV. S-04-977 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v.

HOME DEPOT USA, INC., dba

HOME DEPOT #6609; and HD

PROPERTIES OF MARYLAND,

Defendants.

 /

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00977-LKK -CMK Document 56 Filed 05/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 Until it was amended in 1992, the only way to prove that 1

defendant violated the Unruh Act was to show that the facility was

in violation of Title 24 and that the discrimination plaintiff

experienced was intentional. See Harris v. Capital Growth

Investors XIV, 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1175 (1991)(“[W]e hold that a

plaintiff seeking to establish a case under the Unruh Act must

plead and prove intentional discrimination in public accommodations

in violation of the terms of the Act”). After the Unruh Act was

amended in 1992 to incorporate the ADA, plaintiff was not required

2

BYRON CHAPMAN,

NO. CIV. S-04-1339 LKK CMK

Plaintiff,

v.

PIER 1 IMPORTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court has received defendants' motion to clarify in 

Wilson v. Pier 1 Imports, No. Civ. S-04-633. In light of that

motion and issues which have arisen in Eiden v. Home Depot, No.

Civ. S-04-977, and Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports, No. Civ. S-04-1399,

the court ORDERS the parties to submit supplemental briefing no

longer than ten (10) pages, and no later than 10:00 a.m. on May 12,

2006, on the issue posed below.

Under the state disability statutes, liability attaches if (1)

plaintiff can show that either the ADA was violated, or (2) 

that the facility in question does not comply with the California

Building Code (CBC) requirements, which are often referred to as

“Title 24," and that defendant committed intentional

discrimination. See Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge 1

Case 2:04-cv-00977-LKK -CMK Document 56 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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

to prove intentional discrimination to establish that his or her

rights were violated under the Unruh Act if the Unruh claim is

premised on an ADA violation. Lentini v. California Center for the

Arts, 970 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004)(No showing of intentional

discrimination is required under the Unruh Act when the violation

is premised on an ADA violation.). 

3

Marina Resort, 194 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1131 n. 4 (E.D. Cal. 2002)

(Shubb, J.). The court, however, has been unable to locate

authority on the question of whether under federal law a plaintiff

can show that a violation of the CBC would also constitute a

violation of the ADA. The parties are ordered to brief this issue

as directed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 8, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00977-LKK -CMK Document 56 Filed 05/08/06 Page 3 of 3