(Cite as: 2006 WL 662742 (E.D.Cal.)) Next, plaintiffs state law claims are predicated on his ADA claims. A violation of the ADA also constitutes a violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 51(f), and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 54(c). Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 347 F.Supp.2d 860, 862-63 (C.D.Cal.

Plaintiffs’ Claim Does Not Require Any Structural Construction Or Modification Of A Physical Structure. Defendant relies on Cal. Civ. Code §51(d), which states in pertinent part: Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure… By its own terms, this provision applies solely to the alteration of physical structures, specifically establishments, facilities and buildings. Target’s reliance on this provision is nothing less than ironic, given that it takes great pains to argue elsewhere that target.com is not a physical structure.

at ¶20. 38 Cal. Civ. Code 51(b). Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP Document 20 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 15 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 National Federation of the Blind, et al. v. Target Corporation Case No.: C 06-01802 MHP Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction 9 D IS A B IL IT Y R IG H TS A D V O C A TE S 20 01 C EN TE R S TR EE T, T H IR D F LO O R B ER K EL EY , C A LI FO R N IA 9 47 04 -1 20 4 51 0.

But even if it were not, Coronado’s holding would still apply, as it is based entirely on the text of Section 51(d), which encompasses construction or alteration “structural or otherwise” as well as physical modifications “of any sort whatsoever.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(d) (emphases added). Case3:10-cv-04816-WHA Document25 Filed12/27/10 Page19 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 recognized in Donald v. Sacramento Valley Bank, 209 Cal. App. 3d 1183, 1188 n.4, 260 Cal. Rptr. 49, 52 n.4 (1989)).7 The Marsh court held that the operator of a business of a type enumerated in Civil Code section 54.

above, a covered facility satisfies the “full and equal” standard under Title III, and is not required to modify a policy or practice, so long as it provides alternative and effective means for the disabled to access its goods and services. “Full and equal” under California’s access statutes should be interpreted coextensively with “full and equal” under Title III because (1) The Title III provisions incorporated in both the Unruh Act and the Disabled Persons Act (see Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51(f) & 54.1(d)) are more specific than the general “full and equal” provisions, and the specific provisions should govern the general (Marsh, 64 Cal. App. 3d at 885); (2) the ADA provisions of the Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act were added nearly a century after the “full and equal” provisions, and a more recent provisions govern older ones (Fleming v. Kent, 129 Cal. App. 3d 887, 891 (Footnote continues on next page.)

Onthe other hand, California’s state civil rights law amplifies the available scope of relief by permitting the recovery of money damages. Because violations of the ADA also constitute a violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code §51(f)) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code §54(c)) plaintiffs can sue in federal court for injunctive relief under the ADA,and tack on state law claims for money damages underthe Unruh Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. In 2004, respondentfiled at least 223 lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the Northern and Central Districts of California alleging violations of the ADA. Ofthose lawsuits, 156 werefiled on behalf of Jarek Molski,” and 40 were filed on behalf of either Les Jankey°or Patrick Connally.

Section 51(b) includes “disability” as a protected category. “Violations of the rights of any person under the ADA are also violations of the Unruh Act, see Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f) and the CDPA, see Id., § 54(c).” Calif. Foundation for Independent Living Centers et al. v. County of Sacramento, 142 F. Supp. 3d.

A violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of both of these California civil rights statutes. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51(f), 54(c). Starline’s discriminatory practices and policies violate the ADA, and thus violate these California statutes.

. Gunther appears to contradict the express language of section 51(f) which provides that "violation of the right of any individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall also constitute a violation of this section." On the other hand, its reasoning is based in part on distinguishing between two damages provisions for disabled access violations, is not unsound.

The Unruh Act makes clear, however, that: Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure . . . . Cal. Civ. Code § 51(d). Plaintiff Sexton’s Unruh Act claim fails because the Act does not apply to the Internet.