Activities Club v. Jones Management-Sunset

Filed 7/27/06 Activities Club v. Jones Management-Sunset CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Robert H. O'Brien, Judge. Affirmed.

Jackson & Associates and Samuel G. Jackson, Jr. for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Burnham Brown, Cathy L. Arias and Claudia Leed for Defendants and Respondents.

_________________________

Plaintiffs and appellants Activities Club (Club), Al Davis (A. Davis), Herman Clavon, III (Clavon), E. Miller (Miller) and Norma Davis (N. Davis) (collectively, plaintiffs or appellants) appeal a judgment in favor of defendants and respondents Jones Management-Sunset, Inc. (Jones Sunset) and Jones Management-Ojai, Inc. (Jones Ojai) (collectively, Jones) following a jury trial.

Appellants contend the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting evidence relating to other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs and in admitting a certain videotape, and that they were prejudiced by pervasive misconduct of defense counsel.

Appellants have presented only a partial transcript of the trial, and thus have failed to meet their burden of presenting an adequate record for review. Without a complete record of the proceedings, this court cannot determine whether any error, if it occurred, was prejudicial in light of the entire record. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2004, plaintiffs Club, A. Davis, Clavon, Miller and N. Davis filed the operative first amended complaint against Jones Sunset and Jones Ojai, as well as other defendants who are not parties to this appeal. The complaint pled violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) (first cause of action); violations of the Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54.1 (second cause of action);^[1] intentional infliction of emotional distress (third cause of action); and unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) (fourth cause of action). The gravamen of the action is that African-Americans who went to Jones's McDonald's restaurants with service dogs were denied service, ostensibly because the restaurants did not allow dogs on the premises, while Caucasian customers with service dogs were served.^[2]

On July 18, 2005, the matter came on for a jury trial. The key issue was plaintiffs' credibility.

In defending the action, Jones asserted the plaintiffs were scam artists and professional litigants who had filed numerous lawsuits against legitimate businesses, that the reports of discrimination were fabricated, and that the dogs lacked indicia they were service animals.

The evidence showed, inter alia, N. Davis, a 74-year old woman who lives in Chicago, came to Los Angeles to visit her son, A. Davis, in December 2003. N. Davis does not have a dog in Chicago, has never owned a service dog, and does not use a service dog in Chicago. She patronizes McDonald's in Chicago without a service dog. She attended the trial without a service dog.

However, during N. Davis's visit to California, she was taken by Miller to 10 or more business establishments, ostensibly assisted by Miller's dog, a dog that was neither registered to N. Davis nor trained to assist her. N. Davis then claimed those businesses discriminated against her by refusing her service.

Jones employees testified that when plaintiffs came into their restaurant they did not identify the dogs as service dogs, the dogs did not wear identification vests and did not have licenses clearly identifying them as service animals.

On August 15, 2005, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict. Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment.

CONTENTIONS

Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in allowing evidence of other lawsuits involving them, and in allowing the presentation of a videotape that was neither relevant nor probative; they were prejudiced by the pervasive misconduct of defense counsel; and the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors requires reversal.

DISCUSSION

1. Appellants' failure to present a complete transcript of the trial precludes this court from determining whether any error, if it occurred, was prejudicial in light of the entire record.

It is a rudimentary principle of appellate procedure that â€