# Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV

> California Supreme Court · February 28, 1991 · 52 Cal. 3d 1142

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789508

## Case

- **Full name:** TAMELA HARRIS Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CAPITAL GROWTH INVESTORS XIV Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 28, 1991
- **Citations:** 52 Cal. 3d 1142; 278 Cal. Rptr. 614; 91 Daily Journal DAR 2522; 805 P.2d 873; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1476; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 900
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mosk
- **Judges:** Broussard, Lucas, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 401 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Munson v. Del Taco, Inc..
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789508

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “the damages provision [in § 52(a) ] allowing for an exemplary award of up to treble the actual damages suffered ... reveals a desire to punish intentional and morally offensive conduct”
- stating that judicial interference in economic policy matters would lead to myriad trials “with no prospect of certainty or stability in the respective rights and duties of the parties”

## Opinion text

*1176 MOSK, J., Dissenting.
The majority hold, as a matter of law, that defendant’s minimum income policy does not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Upon reflection, however, I must agree in principle with Justice Broussard’s dissent that plaintiffs here have pled a facially valid cause of action under the Unruh Act. Because there are factual issues unresolved, the issue could not be disposed of on demurrer.
As the Court of Appeal found, whether an announced policy is arbitrary or unreasonable is to be determined by a trier of fact. Is the three-times-rent criterion an accurate predictor of a tenant’s ability to meet his or her financial obligations? Is the criterion customarily used in the financial industry and, if so, is it reasonable? Is the criterion appropriate in all parts of the state, or do the variations in income levels render it valid in some locales and arbitrary in others? These and other questions clearly require a factual determination.
Since the majority determine these and similar issues on demurrer as a matter of law, I believe they err and therefore dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789508. Public record. Not legal advice.