Harris

Harris v. Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1126·40 Cal. App. 4th 16·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 833·95 Daily Journal DAR 15136·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8739
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 1995B089062California1,684 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

A child died as the result of a motor vehicle accident caused by a drunk driver. The child’s parents became involved with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D.). M.A.D.D. banned them from membership because of their allegedly disruptive conduct. The parents, Carol and James Harris, sued respondents, M.A.D.D., and its general counsel, H. Dean Wilkerson, for arbitrarily discriminating against them in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51; the Act).

The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents on the grounds that the Act is inapplicable to M.A.D.D. It ruled that M.A.D.D. is not a “business establishment” within the meaning of the Act. [[/]]*

The facts in the record are insufficient to determine the legal question of whether or not M.A.D.D. is a business establishment under the Act. [[/]]

Facts

M.A.D.D. is a national nonprofit corporation whose mission is to stop drunk driving and to support victims of this crime. [[/]]*

The Harrises sued respondents for, among other things, violation of the Act. The Act states, in pertinent part, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.