Brooke v. Rihh LP

Background

The court received Theresa Brooke’s First Amended Complaint. The amended complaint again alleged a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, even though the court had previously dismissed that claim with prejudice.

Court’s reasoning

The court stated that it may strike portions of a pleading that are barred by an earlier court order. It also explained that Brooke did not need to replead the Unruh Act claim to preserve it for appeal because the claim had been dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

The court added that, even if Brooke had been granted permission to replead the claim, the new facts identified in the amended complaint—Rihh LP’s rebranding and Brooke’s new office in San Jose, California—still would not show that the alleged injury occurred in California. The opinion states that the Unruh Act applies to persons within California’s jurisdiction, that Brooke is a citizen of Arizona, and that she viewed Rihh LP’s website in Arizona. Based on those facts, the court stated that Brooke lacked standing to bring the Unruh Act claim. The court also noted that Brooke had been granted leave to amend only her Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston ordered Brooke’s Unruh Act claim stricken from the First Amended Complaint. The order did not state that any other claim was stricken.