Mogilefsky

Mogilefsky v. Panda Express CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 20, 2022B314888California1,430 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Panda owns and operates a chain of Asian-style fast food restaurants. On January 3, 2020, appellant visited Panda’s Arroyo Grande location. Appellant, who had pre-ordered his food online, carried his small dog, a Chihuahua mix, under his arm. Appellant’s food was ready when he arrived and he proceeded to the counter to retrieve his food. Appellant held the dog above the food counter. Panda employees served appellant, who then left with his to-go order. Appellant alleges that during this visit, three of Panda’s employees told him dogs are not allowed in the restaurant. Appellant claims he told them his dog was a service dog and that the Panda employees’ comments violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as incorporated by California’s Unruh Act. Panda maintains that under its policies, service dogs are allowed to accompany guests with disabilities in all areas where guests are permitted and that its associates are trained to welcome service dogs. According to associates who worked at the Arroyo Grande location, appellant was a regular guest who had never been denied service or asked to leave because of his dog. 2 On January 6, 2020,…

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.