Cal. Codes » Civil Code
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1750 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This title may be cited as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,440 cases (530 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: In Re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20 (Cal. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20 (Cal. 2009). · cites it 4× “); violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) (CLRA); breach of express warranty; fraud and intentional misrepresentation; breach of undertaking of special duty; negligence; and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.”
In Re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs insist this is not a common-fund case because the relief obtained was primarily injunctive in nature and because, as prevailing parties under California Civil Code § 1750's fee-shifting provision, they are entitled to attorneys' fees calculated under the lodestar…”
Loeffler v. Target Corp., 324 P.3d 50 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 4× “) and an unlawful practice in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.). The complaint also alleged a cause of action for violation of section 6359, a provision exempting many food sales from sales tax.”
George Williams v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, 851 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “The complaint asserted claims for violations of federal and state warranty law; California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750; and California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200.”
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “" and " California Civil Code section 1750 et seq.”
Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civil Code § 1750 et seq., and a claim for unjust enrichment.”
Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal., 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). · cites it 2× “*1238 Plaintiff Tammy Gutierrez sued defendant CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC (CarMax) alleging breaches of express and implied warranties, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section…”
Arias v. Superior Court, 209 P.3d 923 (Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.; see id., § 1781.”
Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans, 988 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999). · cites it 4× “In this case we consider whether a claim brought under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750 et seq. (CLRA or the Act), may be subject to arbitration.”
Kraus v. Trinity Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 999 P.2d 718 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 4× “) Nonetheless, reading section 17203 as permitting orders for disgorgement into a fluid recovery fund would be inconsistent with the Legislature's decision to expressly authorize fluid recovery in class actions and, by providing that Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, §…”
Veera v. Banana Repub., LLC, 6 Cal. App. 5th 907 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “) (FAL)1 and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) (CLRA). In opposition to Banana Republic’s summary judgment motion, plaintiffs produced evidence that in reliance on the allegedly false advertising, they were lured to shop at certain Banana Republic…”
Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2017). “Based on these allegations, Davidson brought four California state law causes of action against Kimberly-Clark, including for common law fraud and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. , False Advertising Law ("FAL"),…”
Show all 1,440 citing cases →
— Cal. Civil Code § 1750(a) — 1 case
Falk v. Gen. Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
— Cal. Civil Code § 1750(a)(5) — 2 cases
Falk v. Gen. Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Tracy Gray Jay Post v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc, 554 F. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.