Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

UCL -- Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.,  ___ Cal.4th ____ (2010), the California Supreme Court held that, to have standing to seek an injunction, the plaintiff need not have suffered a restitutionary loss:  The Court of Appeal held Pharmacies were barred from seeking injunctive relief because, it concluded, they had suffered no monetary loss. To the extent this holding rests on the… Read More

In Davis v. Ford Credit, 2009 WL 3859327 (2009), the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles held that Ford Credit’s practice of applying a payment to past-due installments first, rather than to the current monthly installment, did not violate the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act’s ban on late-fee pyramiding.  (Civ. Code, § 2982(k).)  The facts of the case were as… Read More

In Tietsworth v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2009 WL 3320486 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Fogel explained,   As a threshold matter, the parties disagree with respect to whether Plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claims are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). This issue was addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th… Read More

We previously reported here on the California Supreme Court's landmark B&P 17200 decision, Tobacco II.  A petition for rehearing was filed on June 2, 2009, a copy of which can be found here.  The answer will be due next week, with a ruling by the Supreme Court shortly thereafter. Read More

In Clark v. Superior Court, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 1414903 (2009), the Court of Appeal for the Second District was asked to decide the following question:   Civil Code section 3345 (section 3345) authorizes the award of an enhanced remedy-up to three times greater than the amount of a fine, civil penalty “or any other remedy the purpose or… Read More

In In re: Jamster Marketing Litigation, 2009 WL 1456632 (S.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Miller ruled on whether a Wireless Provider could be held vicariously liable under the CLRA and UCL for alleged misleading advertising by Content Providers.  While a bit far afield from auto finance, the point of law is pertinent as to whether defendants sued under such legal theories may… Read More

The California Supreme Court issued a landmark B&P Code 17200 case today in In re: Tobacco II Cases.  How these rules affect auto finance class actions remains to be seen.  The holding of the decision was as follows: On review, we address two questions:  First, who in a UCL class action must comply with Proposition 64's standing requirements, the class… Read More

In Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, __ Cal.App.4th __ (2009), the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied relief under the UCL for a party who purchased Kwikset locks but claimed it was misled by Kwikset's "Made in U.S.A. label".  The Court of Appeal stated: Absent a showing of some complaint about the cost, quality, or operation of the mislabeled locksets… Read More

In Gerber v. Citigroup, Inc. 2009 WL 248094 (E.D.Cal.2009), District Judge Moulds followed the Southern District's opinion in Sial v. Unifund CCR Partners, 2008 WL 4079281 (S.D.Cal.Aug.28, 2008), and rejected both the Norr-Pennington doctrine and the litigation privilege as defenses to a Rosenthal Act claim. This court is unpersuaded that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine bars actions under the FDCPA. Rather, this court finds… Read More

In Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2009) 2009 WL 57806, the California Court of Appeal held that Federal law (the Energy Policy and Conservation Act) specifying the use of EPA estimates of mileage preempts breach of warranty claims based on a Hybrid vehicle's failure to achieve EPA mileage estimates.  However, the EPCA did not preempt claims under the CLRA and… Read More

In Coordinated Automobile Lease Tax Cases (L.A.Sup. Coord. No. JCCP 4378), Judge Anthony Mohr presided over litigation involving whether automobile leases and the holders of such contracts properly assessed use taxes on such items as acquisition fees and service contracts.  On April 9, 2008, Judge Mohr sustained the demurrers of the various automobile finance companies without leave to amend, holding… Read More

1 2 3 4