UCL -- Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

In Chaiwong v. Hanlees Fremont, Inc., 2017 WL 3838106 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2017), Judge Gilliam dismissed a Rosenthal Act/UCL claim filed against an automobile lender by a consumer and the dealer to whom the customer traded in their vehicle. The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Plaintiff leased a Chevrolet Equinox from Fremont Chevrolet on June 22, 2010.… Read More

In McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2017 WL 1279700, at *1 (Cal., 2017), the California Supreme Court addresses whether the Broughton/Cruz rule survives Concepcion.  See Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat. Ass'n, --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 718344 (9th Cir. 2012) ("the Broughton–Cruz rule does not survive Concepcion because the rule “prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim”—claims for broad public… Read More

In Brooks v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2016 WL 1293757, at *4-5 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment against a consumer on the basis that the consumer lacked standing to sue under the CLRA or UCL for mere technical violations of the used vehicle statute.  The facts were as follows: CarMax… Read More

In Heaton v. Social Finance,  2015 WL 6003119, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Henderson found that defendant's online credit application might be mere comparison shopping such that there was no permissible purpose under FCRA to pull the consumer's credit report. Plaintiffs Shawn Heaton (“Heaton”) and Anna Ahlborn (“Ahlborn”) each visited Defendants' website and had slightly different experiences. Both Plaintiffs registered for the… Read More

In Overholt v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2015 WL 403873 (E.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Burrell granted summary judgment to a car dealer who allegedly had falsely stated that the vehicle was “certified” and allegedly had failed to disclose that the vehicle was prior daily rental. On December 31, 2011, Plaintiff purchased a used 2010 Jeep Liberty (the “Jeep.”) from CarMax.… Read More

We previously reported that Judge Maria Elena James denied CashCall’s summary judgment motion on the issue of whether CashCall’s loans were unconscionable. (http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=5208) CashCall filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that to deny summary judgment on the Unconscionability Claim was incorrect because the UCL cannot be used as a basis for Plaintiffs' Unconscionability Claim because ruling on that claim would… Read More

In de la Torre v. CashCall, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 3752796 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge James granted partial summary judgment to class-action Plaintiffs on their allegation that CashCall’s the loans violated the UCL because they were conditioned on the debtors were required to check a box indicating that they authorized CashCall to withdraw their scheduled loan payments from their… Read More

In Makreas v. Moore Law Group, A.P.C., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 2979018 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a creditor was vicariously liable under the FDPCA/Rosenthal Act or that the UCL was a proper vehicle to obtain relief under those statutes. The district court properly dismissed… Read More

In Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 2014 WL 2116602 (S.D. Cal. 2014) here, Judge Burns granted summary judgment to the Defendant on Plaintiff’s TCPA and UCL claims. For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate for Vertical Fitness on its affirmative defense that Van Patten consented to receiving the texts at issue when he… Read More

In Chulick–Perez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2014 WL 2154479 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Nunley granted a car dealer's motion to dismiss a Plaintiff's claim that a dealer's used-vehicle certification program violated Song-Beverly, the CLRA and the UCL.  The facts were as follows: On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff Michelle Chulick–Perez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) bought a 2003 BMW X5 (hereinafter “the vehicle”) from… Read More

In Wright v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2013 WL 6137482 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion that an automobile customer who paid a small sum of money to set up his right to bring an NOI class action lacked UCL standing to bring the claim.  On April… Read More

In Harrelson v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2013 WL 5348087 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2013), Harrelson filed a class action against CarMax, pleading the first class to be any person who in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint purchased a car from CarMax, signed a retail installment contract (RIC), and made a deferred down payment and whose… Read More

In People v. Persolve, (2013) 2013 DAR 10915, the Court of Appeal held that the litigation privilege is not a defense to a UCL action brought to enjoin business practices made unlawful by a statute more specific than Civil Code 47(b).  So, in this case, the People stated a good UCL claim against a debt collector for alleged unlawful business practices… Read More

In Grossman v. Capital One Bank, 2013 WL 821167 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2013), the California Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision found that a credit card debtor did not have a claim against the credit card company for allowing the ex-wife to continue to charge sums on the Account after the divorce decree.  The facts were not atypical of… Read More

The California Court of Appeal in People v. JTH Tax, Inc. held that vicarious liability could be imposed under the UCL. However, in  Herron v. Best Buy Co. Inc., 2013 WL 595474 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Burrell found that a UCL claim could not be stated against a computer manufacturer for the misrepresentations of the seller.  Toshiba seeks dismissal of all… Read More

In People v. JTH Tax, Inc., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2013 WL 177140 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.), the Court of Appeal for the First District disagreed with a seemingly well-settled, decades-old rule that the doctrine of vicarious liability did not apply to California’s Unfair Competition Law.  The facts were as follows: Defendant JTH Tax, Inc., doing business as Liberty Tax Service (Liberty),… Read More

In Rojas v. Platinum Auto Group, Inc. --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2013 WL 156561 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2013), the California Court of Appeal required strict compliance under Rees-Levering, finding that a dealer’s error of improperly listing a $2,000 ‘down-payment’ on the downpayment line (line 6G) of the standard auto RISC as opposed to the ‘deferred downpayment’ line (line 6D) rendered the… Read More

In Kaiser v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2013 WL 100218 (N.D.Cal. 2013), a consumer complained that a vehicle manufacturer improperly sought to offset its lemon law liability by charging the consumer for unreasonable wear and tear on the vehicle.  Judge Ryu allowed the claim to proceed past the pleading stage.   The basic facts were as follows: Shortly thereafter, Kaiser received… Read More

In Mortimer v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 57856 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Spero rejected a FCRA plaintiff's complaints about a creditor's reporting of his account through and after bankruptcy, but allowed leave to amend as to Plaintiff's CCRAA and UCL claims. Several courts, including two in this district involving closely analogous factual situations, have held that reports, after discharge, of delinquencies… Read More

In Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 6684748 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a post-trial petition to enforce arbitration, and found partial pre-emption of the UCL to the extent it conflicted with the business of banking in how a bank applies and computes overdraft fees.  The Court of Appeals… Read More