Vargas v. Hampson

GIBSON, C. J.

Plaintiffs, relying on the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§51 and 52), brought an action for injunctive relief. General and special demurrers to the, complaint were sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs failed to amend and are appealing from the judgment of dismissal.

The allegations of the complaint may be summarized as follows: Plaintiffs, husband and wife, are of Mexican ancestry and are citizens of the United States. The action is brought in their behalf and as a class action in behalf of all persons discriminated against because of such ancestry. Defendant, a real estate broker, was engaged in that capacity in connection with the sale of real property in a tract development.

[481]

Plaintiffs desired to purchase a home in the tract, made a cash deposit with defendant, and at his request signed a purchase and sale agreement. Later defendant returned the deposit to plaintiffs and told them that the house and lot would not be sold to them. Defendant “refused to sell” the property to plaintiffs for the sole reason they are of Mexican ancestry, and his refusal was “pursuant to, and in accordance with,” his policy as a real estate broker not “to sell” real property to persons of Mexican ancestry. Defendant in the course of his business threatened to, and unless enjoined will, refuse to sell real property to plaintiffs and others solely because of their Mexican ancestry. Plaintiffs pray that defendant be enjoined from refusing to sell real property to them and others similarly situated solely because of their race or ancestry.

We held in

Burks

v.

Poppy Construction Co., ante,

p. 463 [20 Cal.Rptr. 609, 370 P.2d 313], that the TJnruh Act is valid, that it applies to real estate transactions, that a person aggrieved by a violation of the act is entitled to injunctive relief, and that he may bring an action for such relief on behalf of all persons similarly situated. In

Lee

v.

O’Hara, ante,