Plaintiff alleged a viable claim under Civ. Code 54.3(a) which grants an aggrieved person a cause of action against any person who denies or interferes with admittance to or enjoyment of the public facilities or otherwise interferes with the rights of an individual with a disability.  Plaintiff alleged he is blind and that defendants interfered with his enjoyment of the public sidewalk outside their business establishment by keeping an aggressive unleashed guard dog that attacked or disturbed plaintiff’s guide dog.  The public sidewalk is a public facility.  To allege a violation of Civ. Code 54.3, plaintiff did not have to allege that he was denied equal access to the sidewalk, only that defendant’s conduct interfered with his enjoyment of the sidewalk.  Also, the plaintiff did not have to allege that he sought or wanted any products or services that the defendant sold.  Instead, under Civ. Code 54.3, it was enough to allege that he “presented himself” to a “public place” with the intent of “utilizing its services in the manner in which those . . . services are typically offered to the public and were actually denied” admission or enjoyment (or had his admission or enjoyment interfered with) on a particular occasion.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5 (Kim, J.); October 5, 2018; 28 Cal. App. 5th 15