Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00563-DMS-POR

Document 8-2

Filed 06/19/2008

Page 1 of 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. Introduction........................................................................................ 1-2 Discussion ........................................................................................ 2-11 A. Equity: Hubbard Has Pled Intent And Has A Right To Prove Up Such Intent ........................................... 2-4 B. Factual: The Gunther Case Involved A Property Undergoing A Re-Model......................................................... 4-5 C. Legal: Gunther Misinterpreted The Law, And The Ninth Circuit Has Stated It Believes There Is Strong Evidence that California Supreme Court Will Reject Gunther ..................................... 5-11 1. Preliminary Matter: Intent .................................................. 5-8 a. The Disabled Persons Act................................................. 6 b. The Munson Certification .............................................. 6-8 2. A Brief Discussion of Why Gunther Got the Law Wrong ............................................................................... 8-11 III. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 11-12

i

Case 3:08-cv-00563-DMS-POR

Document 8-2

Filed 06/19/2008

Page 2 of 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Donald v. Café Royale, Inc., 218 Cal.App.3d 168, 177-180 (1990).................................................. 6 Gunther v. Lin, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 (Cal.App.2006) ............................................ 1, 8-11 Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 ....................................................................... 8-9 Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.2001) ............................................................... 7 In re Watts, 298 F.3d. 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................. 8 Koire v. Metro Car Wash, (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24 ......................................................................... 8-10 Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................... 3, 5, 7 Modern Development Co. v. Navigators, Ins. Co., (2003) 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 ................................................................. 8-11 Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 522 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................... 3-4, 7 Ryman v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 505 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 6 Wilson v. Haria and Gogri Corp., 479 F.Supp.2d 1127 (E.D.Cal.2007) .............................................. 7, 11

ii

Case 3:08-cv-00563-DMS-POR

Document 8-2

Filed 06/19/2008

Page 3 of 3

Statutes Cal. Civ. Code § 51......................................................................................... 3 Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f)................................................................................... 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 52......................................................................................... 3 Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(d) ................................................................................. 6 Cal. Health & Safety Code §19955(a)...................................................... 6 n.1

iii