4 ms·
The CA SC didn't address that.. our opinion does not preclude Square from disputing White’s factual allegations. ... Nor do we express any view on whether a de
by rgbrenner 7y ago
The CA SC didn't address that..
our opinion does not preclude Square from disputing White’s factual allegations. ... Nor do we express any view on whether a defendant violates the Act by discriminating on the basis of occupation or on White’s adequacy as a representative for a class of bankruptcy attorneys excluded from Square’s services. The question of an individual plaintiff’s standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is distinct from the question of that plaintiff’s ability to serve as a representative for a class of allegedly aggrieved individuals.[0]
White only won standing to bring his case. He's still prohibited from using Square; and he needs to win his case against Square before that'll change.
0. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2019/s249248.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2019/s...
- ineedasername 7y agoPrecisely. This is a "win" in terms of providing standing to litigate issues that previously would have been precluded under arbitration clauses, or through lack of transaction per the Surrey v. TrueBeginnings precedent, which is what was overturned. It get's around the arbitration clause by overturning Surrey, so plaintiffs who are not a party to the arbitration clause can be found that may (through class representation) act for those who are subject to the arbitration clause.