Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s LLC

California Supreme Court Case Number 131798

Case Type: Disability Discrimination, Unfair Business Practices

Status: Pending before the California Supreme Court

The Sturdevant Law Firm, together with Disability Rights Advocates in Oakland and Rosen, Bien & Asaro in San Francisco, represent plaintiff Californians for Disability Rights (CDR) in this disability access case. CDR, a nonprofit disability resource organization, filed a lawsuit in 2002 against Mervyn’s LLC alleging that Mervyn’s failed to provide adequate access to individuals with mobility disabilities in its stores throughout California. The lawsuit was brought under the Unfair Competition Law and is predicated on California’s civil rights laws, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act.

The case proceeded to a bench trial on the merits in 2003. Over the course of 17 days, the parties presented the testimony of over 25 witnesses. In its Statement of Decision issued after trial, the trial court found that Mervyn’s had a policy and practice of maintaining inadequate space in its walkways for individuals with mobility disabilities. However, the trial court found that Mervyn’s could take advantage of legal defenses available under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based solely on its erroneous conclusions about these federal defenses, the court entered judgment for Mervyn’s.

CDR appealed. While the case was on appeal, however, Proposition 64 was passed by the voters. Proposition 64 changes certain requirements for bringing a case under the Unfair Competition Law. Based on this change in the law, Mervyn’s moved to dismiss the case. The Court of Appeal agreed with CDR that Proposition 64 does not impact this case. Other Courts of Appeal, however, found that Proposition 64 does impact pending cases. The Supreme Court recently agreed to decide the issue in this case. The Sturdevant Law Firm recently submitted its brief in the Supreme Court. We expect the Court to set oral argument sometime in early 2006.

• View CDR's Answering Brief in the California Supreme Court