Saurman v. Peter's Landing Prop. Owner

324 Cal.Rptr.3d 59

Robert SAURMAN, as Successor in Interest, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.PETER’S LANDING PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

G061561

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3.

Filed July 26, 2024

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah C. Servino, Judge. Reversed in part and affirmed in part. Motion for sanctions denied. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00924201)

Charles S. Roseman & Associates, Charles S. Roseman, San Diego, and Richard D. Prager; Williams Iagmin and Jon R. Williams, San Diego, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Singleton Schreiber and Benjamin I. Siminou as Amicus Curiae for Consumer Attorneys of California on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Robert Rucci, Arezoo Jamshidi and Kaitlyn A. Jensen, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

In this case we hold that a successor in interest of a disabled person who was allegedly killed by an unlawful barrier in a place of public accommodation has standing to commence a lawsuit for injunctive relief (i.e., barrier removal) in a California superior court under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA).¹

Kathleen Saurman suffered from medical conditions that made it difficult for her to walk. Kathleen was celebrating her 60th birthday with her husband Robert at a restaurant.² While Kathleen was walking to their table, she fell on a small stairway leading to a slightly elevated area of the dining room. Robert took Kathleen to a hospital, where she contracted a fatal infection after a surgery and died.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, Robert sued the restaurant’s owner, who later sold the restaurant. In the instant lawsuit, Robert is suing both the former and the present restaurant owner, Peter’s Landing Property Owner LLC ("Owner"), alleging ADA violations, as well as violations of state disability access laws: the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Unruh Act), and the Disabled Persons Act (the DPA).

Owner filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for sanctions against Robert’s attorney for pursuing a frivolous lawsuit. The trial court granted both motions. Robert and his attorney filed this appeal.

The trial court granted Owner’s summary judgment motion as to Robert’s ADA cause of action because the court found Robert lacked standing to bring a lawsuit for injunctive relief. We disagree.

[1, 2] It appears that a successor in interest does not have standing in a federal court to bring an ADA claim for injunctive relief. (City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983) 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (Lyons).) But whether or not a plaintiff has standing to commence an ADA claim in a California state court is determined by state law rather than federal law. (Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 671, 690, 300 Cal. Rptr.3d 572.) In California, "a cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death." (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.20, subd. (a).)³ "A cause of action that survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action … passes to the decedent’s successor in interest." (§ 377.30.) Thus, we find Robert has standing to commence an ADA claim on Kathleen’s behalf in the superior court.

The court granted Owner’s summary judgment motion as to the state causes of action because Robert "submitted no evidence to show any act, omission, or error by [Owner] in relation to this action." We disagree.

The Unruh Act and the DPA allow plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief. Owner does not dispute that the restaurant is currently in the same condition as is it was at the time of Kathleen’s fall; therefore, we find there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Owner is in current violation of the Unruh Act and the DPA, and Robert has standing as a successor in interest to seek to correct these violations.

Finally, the trial court granted Owner’s motion for attorney sanctions, ordering Robert’s attorney to pay Owner nearly $100,000 for pursuing what the court found to be frivolous claims. We find Robert’s claims were not frivolous. Thus, we reverse that order.

In sum, we reverse the trial court’s order granting Owner’s motion for summary judgment as to the federal ADA cause of action; reverse the court’s order granting summary judgment as to the state disability access causes of action (the Unruh Act and the DPA); affirm the court’s order granting summary judgment as to the "causes of action" for injunctive and declaratory relief; reverse the trial court’s order of sanctions against Robert’s attorney; and deny Owner’s motion filed in this court for sanctions against Robert and his attorney for filing an allegedly frivolous appeal.

I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2014, Kathleen went to the Pelican Isle Waterfront Dining Restaurant (the restaurant) to celebrate her 60th birthday with Robert and two of their friends. As Kathleen was walking to their table, she fell on a small stairway leading to a slightly elevated area of the dining room. The next day, Kathleen underwent surgery for a broken hip. Four days later, Kathleen died from an infection. (Saurman et al. v. Gnirob Capital Corporation (Sept. 28, 2020, G057166) 2020 WL 5757178 [nonpub. opn.].)

In April 2015, Robert filed a complaint against the restaurant’s owner, Gnirob Capital Corporation et al. (Gnirob), for wrongful death (the wrongful death complaint). In April 2017, Robert filed a motion to amend the complaint, seeking to add additional causes of action, including a violation of the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51) and a violation of the DPA (Civ. Code, § 54, et seq.).⁴ The trial court denied the motion.

In June 2017, Robert filed a separate action (the disability access complaint) against Gnirob and "Doe" defendants alleging four causes of action: a violation of the ADA; a violation of the Civil Code (the Unruh Act and the DPA); declaratory relief; and injunctive relief. This lawsuit is the subject of this appeal. Robert alleged Kathleen had suffered from immune disorders that impaired her mobility. Robert claimed Kathleen was denied full and equal access to the restaurant and its surrounding property (the Property). Robert alleged the Property had 22 barriers preventing access to disabled persons (e.g., inaccessible bathrooms, lack of accessible parking, a raised dining area that lacked an accessible route, etc.). Robert averred he is a "successor in interest (as defined in section 377.11 …) and succeeds to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding."⁵

In October 2017, Gnirob filed a demurrer to the disability access complaint. Gnirob argued Robert lacked standing because none of four asserted claims survived Kathleen’s death. The trial court overruled the demurrer as to the first cause of action (the Unruh Act and DPA claims). The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the remaining causes of action.

In August 2017, Owner incorporated as an LLP and acquired the Property. It is an undisputed material fact that Owner had no connection to the Property prior to this date.

In August 2018, a jury returned a verdict in the wrongful death case. The jury found the former restaurant owner Gnirob negligent, but found its negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Kathleen’s death, Robert filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted. The court’s ruling on the new trial was later affirmed on appeal.⁶ (Sauman et al v. Gnirob Capital Corporation, supra, G057166.)

In May 2019, Robert amended the disability access complaint to add Owner as a defendant. In August 2021, Owner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (the action had been stayed). In November 2021, the trial court denied the motion.

In January 2022, Owner filed a motion for $150,000 in sanctions, arguing Robert’s counsel had pursued "a frivolous complaint against Owner when such claims lacked any legal or evidentiary support …."

In February 2022, Robert’s counsel filed an opposition to the motion for sanctions. Counsel argued the claims "are warranted either by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law."

In February 2022, Owner filed a motion for summary judgment. As to the ADA claim, Owner stated it "only allows for injunctive relief." Owner argued Robert, "(as the successor to Decedent) lacks standing to bring any claims seeking injunctive relief." As to the Unruh Act claim, Owner argued it was not liable "as a matter of law because … at the time [Kathleen] visited the Property in 2014, Owner did not own, operate, lease, or have any connection, whatsoever, to the Property." Owner did not address Robert’s DPA claim.

In April 2022, Robert filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Robert argued he had standing under California’s survivorship statutes. Robert stated, "that the subject property remains in the same general condition as it existed from the time of [Kathleen’s] fall." Owner did not dispute this material fact.

In April 2022, the trial court granted Owner’s motion for summary judgment. As to the ADA claim, the court found: "The only remedy available to a private litigant under Title III, is injunctive relief. [Citations.] Claims for injunctive relief require that there exist a real or immediate threat of irreparable harm. [Citation,] The death of Kathleen Saurman rendered moot her claim for injunctive relief under the ADA, as there is necessarily no prospect of fu- ture injury to Kathleen Saurman."⁷ As to the Unruh Act and DPA claims (Civ. Code, §§ 51, 52, 54, et seq.), the court ruled Robert "submitted no evidence to show any act, omission, or error by [Owner] in relation to this action." The court also granted the motion as to Robert’s causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief.⁸

In May 2022, the trial court granted Owner’s motion for attorney sanctions in the amount of $98,852. (§ 128.7.) The court found Robert’s...