Flowers v. Prasad
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MANELLA, J.
In the underlying action for disability discrimination, appellants John and Seth Flowers alleged that they were denied service at respondents’ restaurant due to John Flowers’s service dog. In sustaining a demurrer and granting summary adjudication in respondents’ favor, 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 (Civ. Code, §§ 51, 52). Following those rulings, at appellants’ request, the court dismissed their action with prejudice. We reverse the order…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Kathleen Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido Alan Corbin Randy Vogel, and Does 1-10Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Garcia v. McCutchenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Osborne v. YasmehCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- County of Santa Clara v. EscobarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Golden State Seafood, Inc. v. SchlossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants' Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants' Medical GroupCalifornia Supreme Court · 2026
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.