A long-term, committed relationship

Appellant, who had been in a long-term, committed relationship with a decedent, challenged a judgment of dismissal entered after the Superior Court of Orange County (California) sustained without leave to amend a demurrer filed by the respondent, the decedent's sister, to appellant's complaint alleging intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) and deceit by false promise.

The best business attorney trial court found the appellant's III cause of action insufficient on its face, based on its conclusion the tort was not legally recognized in California. The court held that a court should recognize the tort of III as a valid cause of action if it was necessary to afford an injured plaintiff a remedy. Although the appellant's complaint failed to sufficiently allege the IIEI tort, the court found that he had to be afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint if he believed he could allege the facts necessary to support an IIEI claim as delineated by the court. The court concluded that the appellant's complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for deceit. Hire one of the best san diego employment lawyers who know all about business laws.

Appellant's complaint sufficiently alleged a false promise, and, by sufficiently pleading respondent's promise was false at the time she made it, appellant also sufficiently pled the element of scienter. Appellant also sufficiently pled actual reliance, and the complaint contained specific allegations of facts showing why appellant's reliance on respondent's promises was reasonable under the circumstances. Respondent's alleged misrepresentations were not so preposterous or obviously false as to preclude tort liability.

The court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Appellant county fair ejected respondent patron for refusing to remove his vest bearing a motorcycle club insignia. His Government Claims Act claim got rejected. He sued under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b), and Cal. Const. art. 1, § 2, enforceable through a Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b) action for damages. The Sonoma County Superior Court (California) awarded him damages and attorney fees. Appellant county sought review.

The fair had a dress code against provocative apparel and "gang insignia." The trial court dismissed the city as a party, as it had not adopted the dress code. The appellate court found that as the § 51(b) claim derived from common law principles, and as the § 52.1(b) claim sounded in tort, they were subject to the Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340 one-year statute of limitations. But the Government Claims Act extended the limitations beyond the one-year. Enforcement of the dres’s code did not deprive the patron of full and equal access to accommodations in violation of the Unruh Act.
The legislature intended to confine the scope of the Unruh Act to types of discrimination it listed. Any judicial expansion of coverage was to be done carefully, subject to a three-step inquiry. The dres’s code was, however, void for vagueness and facially overbroad, and its enforcement against the patron deprived him of his Due Process Clause liberty interest in personal dress and appearance. The definition of "gang," in general, was notoriously imprecise. The dress code did not contain ascertainable standards. There was no showing that wearing such insignia would lead to violence.The portion of the judgment finding that the patron was denied free and equal access to the fair, in violation of the Unruh Act, was reversed. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed.