In a significant decision addressing the intersection of disability rights and constitutional protection, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Tsay JBR LLC v. United States District Court (Brooke) that under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a defendant hotel owner sued in federal district court for statutory damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Unruh Act) is entitled to a jury trial on those damages.
Plaintiff Teresa Brooke sued Tsay JBR LLC, the owner of a California hotel, for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (the ADA) and the Unruh Act. The district court converted a scheduled jury trial to a bench trial on the issue of statutory damages under § 52(a) the Unruh Act. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Background Facts
In August 2023, Plaintiff Teresa Brooke, who uses a wheelchair, visited the Ramada by Wyndham Burbank Airport and thereafter sued hotel owner, Tsay JBR LLC (Tsay JBR), alleging violations of the ADA and Unruh Act on the grounds that architectural barriers prevented her access to the premises. Brooke sought injunctive and declaratory relief under the ADA and statutory damages, declaratory relief, and attorney's fees under the Unruh Act.
The district court granted Brooke's motion for summary judgment, finding that she had established an ADA violation, and ordered injunctive relief to address the hotel's access issues. As the Unruh Act provides that a violation of the ADA is also a violation of the Unruh Act, the district court held that Brooke had also established an Unruh Act violation. But the district court noted that where the violation is construction-related, statutory damages are available only where a plaintiff personally encountered, or was deterred by, the violation, and that Brooke had not established that fact in her summary judgment motion. The district court then converted the scheduled jury trial on that issue to a bench trial, finding that under the circumstances, the right to a jury trial did not attach to § 52(a) of the Unruh Act.
Tsay JBR petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the Seventh Amendment does guarantee the right to a jury trial in actions where damages are sought. The Ninth Circuit agreed, granted the writ, and directed the district court to reset the matter for a jury trial on Brooke's Unruh Act statutory damages claim.
The Right to a Trial by Jury
As noted by the Ninth Circuit, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial in suits at common law, including statutory claims, that are "legal in nature." The Court held that this constitutional right applies even when equitable relief is sought as long as the claim also contains a legal claim. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1979). To determine whether a claim is legal or equitable, courts apply a two-part test:
- Comparison of the statutory action in the current case to the historical causes of action in historical 18th Century English courts and
- An assessment of whether the remedy sought is legal or equitable in nature, giving greater weight to the remedy. Tull v. United States (1987) 481 U.S. 412,417-418,421.
Nature of the Remedy: Statutory Damages as a Legal Form of Relief
Applying this two-part test, the Ninth Circuit first found that claims under the Unruh Act closely resemble 18th Century common law actions involving public accommodations, in which a duty was imposed on proprietors to serve all customers, law that was later adopted by American courts and, significantly here, was codified in California in 1897 in the predecessor of the Unruh Act.
Upon that background and noting that section 52(a) authorizes damages of at least $4,000 and up to three times actual damages, the Court found that § 52(a) is legal in nature as its heightened remedies punish or deter rather than solely restore the status quo. Given the historical foundation and the legal nature of the remedy, the Ninth Circuit ultimately held that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial exists for adjudicating statutory damages claims under Section 52(a) of the Unruh Act.
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the principle that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial must be preserved when a Plaintiff pursues statutory damages under civil rights statutes, like the Unruh Act, when the statute carries heightened remedies, indicative of legislative intent to punish and to serve as a deterrent.
In re Tsay JBR LLC (2025) ___ F.4th ___, 2025 WL 1375533 (May 13, 2025).