SAN JOSE, Calif. — The last remaining plaintiff in a putative class action against social network operator Quora Inc. saw her lawsuit trimmed to just a single claim for negligence over a 2018 data breach on Dec. 21, when a California federal judge granted summary judgment to the defendant on a claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), finding the negligence claim to be an adequate remedy at law to address the plaintiff’s claimed damages.
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A pizza company with more than 17,000 franchised and company-owned stores in the United States and internationally filed a notice of appeal on Jan. 5 in a federal court in California after its motion to compel arbitration of a putative class complaint over truck drivers’ cell phone expenses failed.
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A group of parents suing YouTube LLC and Google LLC (Google, collectively) for the unauthorized collection of children’s personal data failed to allege any claims that are not regulated by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a California federal judge ruled Dec. 21, granting dismissal of class claims under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other states’ consumer protection laws as preempted by the federal statute.
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Dec. 30 allowed a consumer’s intentional misrepresentation, express warranty, implied warranty and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law (FAL) claims to proceed in a product labeling dispute against a pet food company, finding that claims under all three prongs of the UCL survive the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A putative class complaint accusing a lender of charging interest rates in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) may proceed in the court system as the lender’s arbitration agreement with customers was unenforceable under the rule established in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., a California appellate panel ruled Jan. 11.
PASADENA, Calif. — Putative class claims by a consumer under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) made in a putative class complaint over supplement labeling statements are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Jan. 13.
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California on Jan. 7 opined that after he reviews October 2020 settlement communications he will grant a motion to remand a non-class action consolidated complaint involving more than 1,200 named plaintiffs bringing two California state law claims, including one for violating the unfair competition law (UCL), finding that the amount in controversy for each individual plaintiff has not been met.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal magistrate judge in California on Jan. 7 granted final approval to a $5.75 million settlement agreement reached between an insurance company and a class of agents and trainees who alleged various wage claims in violation of California’s unfair competition law and state wage laws, resolving the operative complaint as well as two related cases.
SANTA ANA, Calif. — The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection on Jan. 8 asked a federal court in California to require a defendant allegedly involved in an illegal student loan debt relief scheme to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for failing to disclose certain assets and for his transfer of other assets, arguing that the defendant’s conduct violated the financial accounting provisions of the court’s restraining and preliminary injunction orders in a lawsuit that recently resulted in a default judgment that ordered another defendant to pay $30 million in statutory penalties for violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and California’s unfair competition law (UCL).
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) supersedes trade secret misappropriation claims, including those under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, a federal judge in California ruled Dec. 24, partially dismissing a lawsuit accusing a water bottle maker of violating a bite-valve licensing agreement.
MERCED, Calif. — A California judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Dec. 23 in a lawsuit accusing a poultry company of failing to make appropriate efforts to protect workers from the spread of the novel coronavirus in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and other state laws.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal magistrate judge in California on Jan. 4 denied a motion to dismiss a putative class complaint accusing Rust-Oleum Corp. of violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws by labeling its KRUD KRUTTER cleaning products as “non-toxic” and “earth friendly,” writing that the lead plaintiff has “plausibly alleged that the labels are misleading to reasonable consumers.”
SAN FRANCISCO — A Florida man’s claims against Google LLC under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) related to purported overcharging in the company’s AdWords program were revived by a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 4, with the majority finding that the man’s continued ownership of his AdWords account, despite the sale of the business he was advertising, conferred standing that allowed him to pursue his claims.
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Dec. 29 declined to reconsider a November order granting certification to a class of California consumers accusing The Kroger Co. of violating California laws, including the unfair competition law (UCL), by labeling certain breadcrumb products with “0g Trans Fat” while they were made with partially hydrogenated oil (PHO).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Dec. 31 denied a motion to remand a putative class complaint by Starbucks Corp. store managers seeking reimbursements for cell phone costs and other fees, ruling that the employer “plausibly established that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.”
LOS ANGELES — Because a motion for class certification remains unresolved regarding a claim for an alleged violation of California’s unfair competition law, no final order on class status has been issued, a California appeals court held Dec. 18, concluding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in three employees’ lawsuit accusing four utility companies of wage and hour violations.
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge on Dec. 18 dismissed a plaintiff’s claim alleging violation of California’s unfair competition law after determining that the claim cannot be maintained under California law because the “last event” related to the plaintiff’s claim occurred in Pennsylvania where the plaintiff purchased the protection plan at issue (Michael Shuman v. SquareTrade Inc., No. 20-2725, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238855).
LOS ANGELES — A class of health care providers lack standing to pursue Sherman Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims against an insurer, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts their California unfair competition law and other state law claims, a federal judge in California said Dec. 18 (Pacific Recovery Solutions, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, et al., No. 20-2249, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238854).
SAN DIEGO — Allegations of false advertising and unfair competition against a hotel chain in connection with discrepancies between an initially displayed room rate and the total cost for the same room fail to state a claim, a federal judge in California ruled Dec. 16 (Nantille Charbonnet v. Omni Hotel and Resorts, et al., No. 20-01777, S.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236726).
LOS ANGELES — Walmart Inc. on Dec. 9 moved in California federal court to dismiss a second amended Roundup class action on grounds that the claim fails for lack of standing and the lead plaintiff cannot show that she is likely to be deceived about the safety of Roundup in the future based on the lack of product warnings and, therefore, there is “no threat of imminent injury” (Sherry Hanna v. Walmart Inc., No. 20-1075, C.D. Calif.).