The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, alleges that the club engaged in discriminatory pricing and security practices for years. According to court documents, male and nonbinary attendees were routinely charged full admission while women were offered free or reduced entry. Plaintiffs also claim they were subjected to security frisking that women were allowed to bypass.
At the core of the case is California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, a sweeping anti-discrimination statute that prohibits business establishments from treating customers differently based on protected characteristics such as sex, race, age, religion, disability, and gender identity. Unlike federal laws that typically require a governmental or employment context, the Unruh Act applies broadly to private businesses - including bars and nightclubs.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner gave preliminary approval to the settlement in May and has scheduled a final fairness hearing for August 29, where he will determine whether the deal is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" under California law. The proposed agreement does not include an admission of wrongdoing by the defendants.
The class-action covers men and nonbinary individuals who paid full cover and were frisked at the venue's events from April 2015 through May 2020, when the club permanently closed. Court records show the venue's operators turned over more than 34,000 names and emails of ticket buyers from 2017 to 2020, and the class is estimated to include at least 17,000 people. Notifications are currently being sent to those affected, inviting them to file claims.
Depending on the number of claimants, eligible individuals may receive between $245 and $4,000 each. The two named plaintiffs, Alex Maystrenko and Steve Frye, are slated to receive $25,000 each for their role in the case, while up to 40% of the settlement could go toward attorneys' fees, administration, and other legal costs. Any leftover funds will be split between the Legal Aid Society of San Diego and Sunshine Ranch Therapeutic Riding in Lakeside.
This lawsuit is not the first of its kind in California. Over the past two decades, courts have repeatedly ruled that gender-based promotions, including "ladies’ nights," run afoul of the Unruh Act. Notably, in Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985), the California Supreme Court held that offering discounts to customers based solely on sex was illegal, even if intended to increase business.
Despite these legal precedents, sex-based pricing remains a persistent promotional tactic in nightlife, often justified as a marketing strategy rather than discrimination. But critics argue that these practices reinforce outdated gender norms and exclude patrons who don't identify within the traditional binary.
A related lawsuit filed earlier this year by two other men who opted out of the class-action could potentially complicate the settlement. That suit is being handled by San Diego attorney Alfred Rava, a frequent litigator in this arena. Rava has criticized such pricing schemes as "sex-based commercial favoritism," and said he and his clients oppose any policy that treats consumers differently based on gender.
With final approval still pending, the case serves as a reminder that discriminatory pricing - no matter how entrenched in nightlife culture - is still subject to scrutiny under California law. If upheld, the settlement would mark one of the largest legal rebukes yet to the "ladies’ night" tradition in the state.
For San Diego’s nightlife industry, the message is clear: promotions rooted in exclusion can come with a serious price tag.
