Court Opinion

ID: 9795331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:26:25.619109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:28:07.769666
License: Public Domain

WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.
I fully agree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion. I write separately because I cannot join the majority’s *181conjectural discussion (ante, at p. 179) of equitable defenses to hypothetical claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a)). As the majority explains (ante, at p. 180), no such issue is before us. That nothing the majority says on the subject has any precedential force necessarily follows. (People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 915 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 4 P.3d 265]; Hart v. Burnett (1860) 15 Cal. 530, 598-599.)