Flowers v. PrasadAnnotate this Case
Appellants filed suit against defendants, alleging that they were denied service at respondents' restaurant due to their service dog. The trial court concluded that appellants could assert a claim under the Disabled Persons Act (DPA), Civ. Code, 54 - 55.3., but not under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act), Civ. Code, 51, 52. The trial court sustained a demurrer and granted summary adjudication to respondents. Determining that the order of dismissal is appealable, the court concluded that because there is no irreconcilable inconsistency between the Unruh Act and the DPA, a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination relating to the use of a service dog may assert claims under both statutory schemes, subject to any specific limitations stated in them. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.