In 2011 and 2013, plaintiff Jorge Andersen, an unemployed man in his 50s, was allegedly not allowed to enter several supermarkets in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with his dog. Anderson claimed that supermarkets owned by Hieu Tran and patrolled by Capital City Patrol Inc. refused to allow him to shop with the use of his service dog. Thus, he claimed he was discriminated against due to his disability. Andersen sued Tran and one of Tran’s supermarkets, Shun Fat Supermarket Inc. Anderson later amended the complaint to include several other supermarket entities owned by Tran, including SF Supermarket Inc., El Monte Superstore Inc., and Westminster Superstore LLC. Andersen also sued the outside security company, Capital City Patrol Inc. Andersen alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51), the California Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code § 54.2), the Bane Act, and the Ralph Act. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Andersen was discriminated against and denied services at the defendants’ business establishments due to Andersen’s disability and use of a service animal. Andersen claimed that he is a disabled American veteran who obtained a service dog to help him manage his disabilities. He also claimed that his service dog is licensed by Los Angeles County as a “California Assistance Animal.” However, Andersen alleged that when he attempted to shop at the markets owned by Tran, he was met by managers and/or security guards upon entering the store, and that he was told that he could not enter the store with his dog. He alleged he tried to explain that his dog was a service animal, but the managers and/or security guards still refused to let him in with the dog. Andersen claimed that he was also told that he was legally required to have paperwork to prove that the dog was a service animal and that he tried to explain that there was no requirement to provide paperwork or to direct them to the service tag on his dog, but that managers and/or security guards still refused to let him enter with the dog. Defense counsel argued that Andersen is not disabled and that Andersen’s dog was not trained as a service animal. Thus, counsel argued that Andersen was not discriminated against due to his disability or use of a service dog., Andersen claimed he became upset about the incidents, causing him emotional distress. The plaintiff’s psychology expert testified that Andersen found it upsetting to be refused accommodation by a supermarket and to be refused the use of his service animal in a store. Thus, the expert opined that the incidents would have caused emotional distress. Defense counsel noted that Andersen underwent no counseling or treatment for his alleged emotional distress. Thus, counsel argued that Andersen suffered no injury or emotional distress from the alleged incidents.