SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on May 14 declined in part two financial institutions’ motion for summary judgment on claims brought by a homeowner including for wrongful foreclosure and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), writing that the dispute over whether a 1099-C form inadvertently sent to the homeowner effectively canceled her loan precludes summary judgment.
SAN FRANCISCO — A California man filed a putative class complaint on May 12 in a federal court in California accusing Tesla Inc. of breach of contract and violating state laws, including the unfair competition law (UCL), by changing the terms of solar roof products purchase agreements and increasing costs by as much as 100% often a few days before scheduled installations.
LOS ANGELES — A California Second District Court of Appeal panel on April 28 affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer whose practice of restricting physicians from making referrals to out-of-network doctors was challenged by a medical association on behalf of its members, writing that the association lacked standing to bring an unfair competition law (UCL) claim because the association did not suffer an injury.
SAN DIEGO — A federal magistrate judge in California on May 12 granted in part a motion to compel discovery brought by the plaintiffs in a putative class action accusing a hotel franchise of violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other state statutes, writing that the bulk of the franchise’s objections to discovery were unfounded and ordering sanctions against it for raising objections to discovery that the court previously said were unmeritorious.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on May 5 denied a Wisconsin corporation’s motion to dismiss a putative class complaint against it for claims including violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) by labeling certain products as made with “plant-based ingredients” while they actually contain chemically processed and manufactured ingredients.
AKRON, Ohio — A federal judge in Ohio on May 11 granted a manufacturer’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging that a hand sanitizer product was falsely advertised as killing “99.99% of germs,” writing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were supported only by evidence regarding a product none of the plaintiffs purchased and scientific studies of sanitizers in general.
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on May 10 granted a motion to compel arbitration of a bank customer’s putative class action claims alleging that a bank violated California's unfair competition law (UCL) and federal law based on its assessment of overdraft fees after the judge found the customer’s argument that his arbitration agreement with the bank was unenforceable is a gateway issue of arbitrability that must be decided by an arbitrator.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Finding no showing of immediate, irreparable injury, a federal judge in California on May 4 denied a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by small businesses and franchisees against the seller of bone density improvement center franchises in their lawsuit alleging claims including fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A financial elder abuse claim, a claim relating to compliance with sections of the California law governing continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) and several claims under the unfair competition law (UCL) survive in a long-running case after a California federal judge on April 21 partly denied and partly granted motions to dismiss claims from residents’ third amended complaint (TAC) alleging that the owner of their CCRC failed to maintain a refund reserve of entrance fees as required by contract and state law.
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge in an April 26 minute order declined a joint request to continue discovery and other deadlines filed by the parties in a software company’s lawsuit against a health care provider for alleged violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims, writing that the fact that settlement talks are pending among the parties is “insufficient” to continue preexisting deadlines.
SAN FRANCISCO — A lender urges the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an April 30 appellant brief to reverse a district court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration with borrowers who brought claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), arguing that the district court violated the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on remand from an earlier appeal by considering arguments outside the Circuit Court’s remand order.
SAN DIEGO — Adopting a “minority view,” a California federal judge on April 19 ruled that a furniture store may pursue claims for false advertising under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) against a competitor without alleging its own reliance on the false advertising but instead based on its allegation that it suffered injuries caused by the alleged misrepresentations.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on April 27 adopted in full a magistrate’s recommendations and entered default judgment for more than $2 million in damages and attorney fees against a defendant accused of defrauding an elderly man and his wife and violating California law, including the unfair competition law (UCL), who has not answered or appeared in the suit.
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Nike Retail Services Inc. has agreed to pay $8.25 million to settle a 2014 class complaint accusing the employer of failing to pay California employees for time spent waiting for and during inspections following their shifts, according to a motion for preliminary settlement approval filed by the lead plaintiff on April 23 in a California federal court.
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A plaintiff’s decision to narrow his class definition in an amended complaint following removal may not be considered when deciding whether remand is appropriate, a federal judge in California ruled on April 20, denying remand of California unfair competition law (UCL) and privacy claims in a case concerning an automatic subscription renewal.
SAN Jose, Calif. — Two putative children’s privacy class actions against Google LLC and YouTube LLC were consolidated in California federal court on April 20 on a motion by the two defendants, with a judge agreeing that the two cases, which pertain to alleged inappropriate collection of the personally identifiable information (PII) of minors who watched videos on the platform, involve common questions of fact and law.
LOS ANGELES — Substance abuse providers’ allegation that they lost revenue as a result of an insurers’ pricing scheme keeps a California unfair competition law (UCL) claim alive, and vague references to an appeals process are not enough to require administrative exhaustion before suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal judge in California said April 14 in partially denying motions to dismiss.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A motion to certify a class of Chili’s patrons affected by a 2018 data breach was partly granted on April 14, with a Florida federal judge certifying a nationwide class for only a negligence claim brought against the restaurant chain’s owner.
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on April 13 denied an ATM company’s motion to sever itself from a putative class action against it, two other ATM companies and a national bank in which the defendants are accused of violating California's unfair competition law (UCL) by assessing balance inquiry fees for cash withdrawals because the judge found overlap between the plaintiffs’ claims against the various defendants.
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 15 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling that held that under California Insurance Code Section 533.5, a directors and officers liability insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds against an underlying unfair competition and false advertising lawsuit brought by the California attorney general, finding that Section 533.5 “does not facially violate a party’s due process right to retain counsel.”