April 1, 2024

Jackson v. Lara

When a bartender refused to serve plaintiff additional alcohol, plaintiff, believing he was refused service due to his race, sought out the defendant, a supervisor.  Defendant, informed plaintiff that he had to leave the premises because he was intoxicated and the club was closing.  An altercation between the parties ensued and resulted in criminal prosecution against plaintiff. 

Plaintiff sued the defendant for (a) malicious prosecution and (b) violation of the unfair competition law (UCL) based on plaintiff’s claim that he was excluded from the bar based on race and that such exclusion violated "public policy against consumers being subject to violence and unwarranted contact by employees at a business establishment.”  The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The court held that plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against defendant failed because the denial of plaintiff’s motion for acquittal in his criminal case established defendant had probable cause to pursue criminal charges against the plaintiff. 

The court further held that plaintiff’s UCL claim failed as a matter of law because plaintiff did not identify the basis for the public policy he claimed the defendant violated, nor did he provide any argument or legal authority supporting that public policy. As a result, plaintiff failed to tether the UCL claim to any established law or regulation, and the court therefore disregarded it.  A UCL claim based on violation of public policy untethered to any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision fails as a matter of law.