Corporaton

Miller v. Corporaton

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 5th 214·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 787·223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 133
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2017B271214California5,295 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Johnson, J.

*218 Joey Miller (Miller) sued defendant Fortune Commercial Corporation, the owner and operator of a chain of Seafood City markets, and several other defendants (collectively, Defendants), because, allegedly, they illegally denied him service when he tried to enter two different Seafood City stores with his service dog. Miller alleged three causes of action: violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act ( Civ. Code, § 51 et seq. (Unruh Act) 1 ); violation of the Disabled Persons Act (§ 54 et seq. (DPA)); and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing principally that Miller's dog was not a fully trained service animal at the time of the alleged incidents, that Miller did not bring his dog to the markets for the purpose of training her, and that in any event neither Miller, who suffers from a disability, nor his stepfather who accompanied him to the markets, were, respectively, capable or authorized to train a service dog. The trial court granted Defendants' motion.

On appeal, Miller argues that, at the time of the alleged incidents, his dog Roxy had received, not only obedience training, but also some meaningful training as a service…

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.