Thomas v. Goulis

64 Cal.2d 884 (1966) DORIS R. THOMAS, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

G. E. GOULIS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

S. F. No. 22019. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

May 10, 1966. Ephraim Margolin, Marshall W. Krause, Arnold M. Greenberg, Richard A. Bancroft and Elliott Leighton for Plaintiff and Appellant.

John F. Duff, Richard G. Logan, Cyril A. Coyle, James S. DeMartini, Thomas Arata, William J. Bush, Peter J. Donnici, James T. McDonald, Richard B. Morris, Jack Greenberg, Robert M. O'Neil, Joseph B. Robison, Sol Rabkin, Duane B. Beeson, Seymour Farber, Robert H. Laws, Jr., Howard Nemerovski and John G. Clancy as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, William French Smith, Samuel O. Pruitt, Jr., and Charles S. Battles, Jr., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. [885]

Memorandum

PEEK, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendants entered upon the granting of defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's complaint in an action for general and statutory damages under sections 51 and 52 of the Civil Code. [fn. 1]

Plaintiff sought to rent an apartment advertised for rental by defendants in May 1962. Her application was refused, and she claims that the sole reason for the refusal, as stated to her by one of the defendants, was the fact that she is a member of the Negro race. She thereupon commenced the instant action in the municipal court and, following a jury trial, recovered judgment in the amount of $1250, including $250 statutory damages as provided in section 52 of the Civil Code. Defendants' motion for a new trial was then granted after plaintiff refused to stipulate to the remittance of a portion of the award for general damages.

Following certification by the Secretary of State of the passage of Proposition 14 by the electorate of the State of California on November 3, 1964, and its incorporation into the Constitution as article I, section 26, [fn. 2] defendants moved to strike plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the constitutional amendment rendered sections 51 and 52 of the Civil Code inoperative. The motion was granted by a three-judge court which, in view of the importance of the questions involved and "serious doubts" entertained by the court as to the constitutionality of article I, section 26, recommended that the matter be appealed and that the appellate department of the superior court certify the matter to this court pursuant to rule 63, California Rules of Court. The matter is now before us after the judgment was affirmed by the appellate department