Crowell v. Isaacs

California Court of Appeal Jul 16, 1965 No. Civ. 21646Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act because they were not the persons discriminated against, but reversed the dismissal of the breach of contract count as it sufficiently alleged a lack of due diligence.

Issues

Whether Caucasian plaintiffs have standing to sue under the Unruh Civil Rights Act for a broker's failure to affirmatively seek out minority buyers.
Whether a complaint alleging a broker's failure to advertise to all races states a cause of action for breach of contract based on a duty to use diligence in procuring a purchaser.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By their first count, plaintiffs seek for themselves alone a remedy created by statute. They are not persons to whom the statute extends the remedy. Thus they have stated no cause of action.”

“The allegation is susceptible of the construction that defendant has failed to reach a market otherwise available for plaintiffs’ property, and that his efforts therefore amount to less than due diligence, and that plaintiffs have suffered thereby.”

DRAPER, P. J.-

— General demurrer to all four counts of the complaint was sustained without leave to amend, and judgment was entered. Plaintiffs appeal, but assert error only as to counts 1 and 2.

The first count seeks recovery under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§ 51, 52) for discrimination in the sale of plaintiffs’ house. Plaintiffs are husband and wife. Both are Caucasians. They executed an agreement granting defendant the exclusive right to sell the house. The agreement, set out in the complaint, makes no reference to race of purchasers. Plaintiffs allege, however, that they are “ready, able and willing to sell ... to a qualified buyer of any race, religion or creed and intended that said property would be offered for sale to the general public regardless of race, religion or creed, but that [defendant] had no intention of offering said property to the general public regardless of race, religion or creed and has failed to seek out qualified Negro buyers or to permit advertising inviting buyers of all races to purchase the property. ”

Judgment was entered before the adoption in 1964 of section 26 of article I of the Constitution of California, and no issue of the validity or applicability of that provision is raised by either party.

[757]

The code sections upon which plaintiffs rely do apply to one engaged in the business of selling real estate, whether as an owner

(Burks

Poppy Constr. Co.,

57 Cal.2d 463 [20 Cal.Rptr. 609, 370 P.2d 313]) or broker

(Lee

O’Hara,

57 Cal.2d 476 [20 Cal.Rptr. 617, 370 P.2d 321]) and are to be liberally construed

(Lambert

Mandel’s of California,

156 Cal.App.2d Supp. 855, 856 [319 P.2d 469]).

Crowell v. Isaacs

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.-

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief