Overview: breach of good faith

HOLDINGS: [1]-A provision in a predispute arbitration agreement that waives the statutory right to seek in any forum public injunctive relief under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), unfair competition law (UCL), or false advertising law is contrary to California public policy and is thus unenforceable under California law; [2]-The Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt this rule of California law or require enforcement of the waiver provision; [3]-Because public injunctive relief remained a remedy available to private plaintiffs under the UCL and the false advertising law, as well as under the CLRA, the arbitration provision at issue in credit card account documents was invalid and unenforceable under state law insofar as it purported to waive the credit card customer's statutory right to seek such relief against the credit card company.

Outcome

Court of appeal's judgment reversed and matter remanded.

Posted by: saimkhan at 04:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

At the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court addressed questions about the applicability of California law to plaintiff nonresident employees who worked both in California and in other states for defendant, a California-based employer.

Overview: corporation lawyers

The Supreme Court held that the California Labor Code's overtime provisions apply to work performed in California by nonresidents, such that overtime pay would be required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of 40 hours per week. The relevant laws of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions were different, but the circumstances revealed no genuine basis for concluding a true conflict existed. The potentially affected jurisdictions did not have a legitimate interest in shielding the employer from the requirements of California wage law as to work performed in California. The general interest of the potentially affected jurisdictions in providing hospitable regulatory environments to businesses was not perceptibly impaired by requiring the employer to comply with California overtime law for work performed in California. The employer's alleged violations of the state's overtime law constituted potentially unlawful acts triggering liability under the state's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. However, there was no basis for applying the UCL to plaintiffs' claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

Outcome

The California Labor Code's overtime provisions apply to claims for compensation for work performed in California, and the same claims can serve as predicates for claims under the UCL. However, claims for overtime compensation under the FLSA for performed in other states cannot serve as predicates for UCL claims.

Posted by: saimkhan at 04:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, denied the request of appellant, the executive director of an organization seeking to advance the civil rights of women and girls, for a preliminary injunction to prevent respondent company from selling its skin cream and sustained the company's demurrer to appellant's first amended complaint. A judgment of dismissal was entered for the company and other respondents. Appellant sought review.

Overview: san diego business law

The trial court found that appellant lacked an operative complaint. The court agreed with the trial court that appellant's claims failed as a matter of law and that injunctive relief was thus unavailable to her. Appellant lacked the requisite confidence in the truth and material completeness of respondents' representations and could not establish actual reliance for the purpose of her fraud claims. As to appellant's California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq., claim, she could not establish that the company's conduct caused her alleged damages because she did not show that she actually relied on the relevant representations or omissions. As to appellant's unfair competition law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., claims, her purchase of the allegedly defective products did not constitute an injury in fact, and she had failed to establish that she lost money or property as a result of unfair competition, as required by Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204. The deficiencies in appellant's UCL claims were also fatal to her false advertising law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq., claim, which relied on the same factual allegations.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's order denying injunctive relief and judgment of dismissal.

Posted by: saimkhan at 04:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Plaintiffs sued defendant drug manufacturer, alleging that the manufacturer knew about the dangers of Vioxx, a pain-relieving drug, but engaged in a campaign to hide or explain away those risks. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, concluding that common issues of fact did not prevail over individual issues. Plaintiffs appealed.

Overview: the concept of res ipsa loquitur would be most relevant to a situation involving:

Plaintiffs pursued causes of action for unfair competition, false advertising, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs sought recovery, on behalf of all persons and entities in California who paid for Vioxx, of the difference in price between what they paid for Vioxx and what they would have paid for a safer, equally effective, pain reliever. The instant court concluded that whether the manufacturer's misrepresentations were material, and therefore induced reliance, was a matter on which individual issues prevailed over common issues, justifying denial of class certification with respect to the CLRA claim. Regarding plaintiffs' unfair competition and false advertising claims, the instant court observed that even if plaintiffs established, classwide, that the manufacturer misrepresented the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx in a manner that was likely to deceive plaintiffs and their physicians, no plaintiff would be able to recover without first identifying a proper comparator drug. Because the issue of a proper comparator was patient-specific, the trial court properly concluded that restitution could not be calculated on a classwide basis.

Outcome

The order denying class certification was affirmed.

Posted by: saimkhan at 04:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Plaintiff consumers appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which sustained defendant manufacturer's demurrer to a complaint that alleged violations of the unfair competition law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq., and sought declaratory relief.

Overview: california business attorney

The consumers alleged that the manufacturer used tubular steel in the exhaust manifolds of certain of its vehicles, instead of more durable and more expensive cast iron. The complaint did not allege that the manufacturer made any representations regarding the composition of the exhaust manifolds, did not allege any personal injury or safety concerns related to the use of tubular steel exhaust manifolds, and did not allege that the use of tubular steel exhaust manifolds violated any warranty or other agreement. The court, in affirming, found no unfair conduct because the use of less expensive and less durable materials in the manufacture of the vehicles did not violate public policy and because the consumers did not cite any specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions allegedly violated. Moreover, the consumers did not state a cause of action for unfair competition based on the fraud prong of the UCL because they pleaded no facts regarding representations or public expectations. The CLRA claim also failed because the consumers pleaded no misrepresentations prohibited by Civ. Code, § 1770, subd. (a). Absent a controversy, declaratory relief was unavailable.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Posted by: saimkhan at 04:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Defendant mortgage company sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) that granted nationwide class certification in an action brought by plaintiffs that alleged defendant's forced placement insurance program was an unfair business practice under California's unfair competition law pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

Overview: caci damages

Plaintiffs brought action against defendant mortgage company that alleged its forced placement insurance (FPI) program was an unfair business practice under California's unfair competition law (UCL) pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs were granted nationwide class certification, and defendant appealed. In reversing the order, the court identified three categories of class members and held Category III members, non-California residents for whom defendant's conduct of purchasing FPI in states other than California, could not assert the UCL claim. Plaintiffs did not cite any authority that construed the UCL as applicable to claims of non-California residents injured by conduct occurring beyond California's borders. The 1992 amendment clarified the scope of injunctive relief available to a plaintiff who was already entitled to pursue a claim under the UCL, but did not expand the conduct regulated by the UCL. Diamond did not support plaintiffs' effort to include Category III members in the nationwide class. The choice of law rules never became relevant because there was no issue to be evaluated with respect to the claims of Category III members.

Outcome

The court reversed the order that granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action, holding the unfair competition law claim could not form the basis for the nationwide class because the claims of non-California residents for whom defendant's conduct of purchasing forced placement insurance occurred in states other than California (Category III members) would be arbitrary and unfair and transgress due process limitations.

Posted by: saimkhan at 04:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.