(a)Thirty days or more prior to the commencement of an action for damages pursuant to this title, the consumer shall do the following:
(1)Notify the person alleged to have employed or committed methods, acts, or practices declared unlawful by Section 1770 of the particular alleged violations of Section 1770.
(2)Demand that the person correct, repair, replace, or otherwise rectify the goods or services
alleged to be in violation of Section 1770.
The notice shall be in writing and shall be sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the place where the transaction occurred or to the person’s principal place of business within California.
(b)Except as provided in subdivision (c), no action for damages may be maintained under Section 1780 if an appropriate correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy is given, or agreed to be given within a reasonable time, to the consumer within 30 days after receipt of the notice.
(c)No action for damages may be maintained under Section 1781 upon a showing by a person alleged to have employed or committed methods, acts, or practices declared unlawful by Section 1770 that all of the following exist:
(1)All
consumers similarly situated have been identified, or a reasonable effort to identify such other consumers has been made.
(2)All consumers so identified have been notified that upon their request the person shall make the appropriate correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy of the goods and services.
(3)The correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy requested by the consumers has been, or, in a reasonable time, shall be, given.
(4)The person has ceased from engaging, or if immediate cessation is impossible or unreasonably expensive under the circumstances, the person will, within a reasonable time, cease to engage, in the methods, act, or practices.
(d)An action for injunctive relief brought under the specific provisions of Section
1770 may be commenced without compliance with subdivision (a). Not less than 30 days after the commencement of an action for injunctive relief, and after compliance with subdivision (a), the consumer may amend his or her complaint without leave of court to include a request for damages. The appropriate provisions of subdivision (b) or (c) shall be applicable if the complaint for injunctive relief is amended to request damages.
(e)Attempts to comply with this section by a person receiving a demand shall be construed to be an offer to compromise and shall be inadmissible as evidence pursuant to Section 1152 of the Evidence Code. Furthermore, these attempts to comply with a demand shall not be considered an admission of engaging in an act or practice declared unlawful by Section 1770. Evidence of compliance or attempts to comply with this section may be introduced by a defendant for the purpose of establishing good faith or to show compliance
with this section.
Notes of Decisions
Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 3× “See Cal. Civ. Code § 1782 (a). On summary judgment, the district court found undisputed that Polo does not have diabetes, and that she had stopped taking her diabetes medication at least five months before she purchased and used DiabeStevia.”
Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Cal. Civ.Code § 1782. It then refused certification of the remainder of the CLRA action (injunctive relief 15 ) in Mancini on the basis that because reliance had to be shown as to the class members, Rule 23(b)(3) had not been complied with.”
Zeiger v. Wellpet LLC, 304 F. Supp. 3d 837 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 3× “" Cal. Civ. Code § 1782 (a). It further states that "[a]n action for injunctive relief brought under the specific provisions of Section 1770 may be commenced without compliance with subdivision (a)," and explicitly allows a plaintiff to "amend his or her complaint without leave…”
Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 48 Communications Reg. (P&F) 795 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “Instead, the CLRA cause of action included the following language in bold: “Notice Pursuant to Civil Code 1782 [R] Plaintiff hereby demands that within 30 days from service of this Complaint, defendants correct, repair, replace or otherwise rectify the deceptive practices…”
Goglin v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 4 Cal. App. 5th 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1782, subd. (a).) No action for damages may be maintained if, within 30 days after receipt of the notice, “an appropriate correction, repair', replacement, or other remedy is given, or agreed to be given within a reasonable time.”
Laster v. T-mobile USA, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (S.D. Cal. 2005).
· cites it 3× “at California law requires sales tax to be added to advertised items; (3) Plaintiffs’ claim for restitution under the UCL and FAL fails because Defendants remitted the taxes collected from consumers to the State Board of Equalization; and (4) Plaintiffs’ claim for damages under…”
Stickrath v. Globalstar, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Such statements sufficiently put Defendant on notice of the CLRA violations alleged by Plaintiffs in this case, and the Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the notice requirement under California Civil Code section 1782. IY. Whether…”
Frenzel v. Aliphcom, 76 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The Act provides: (a) Thirty days or more prior to the commencement of an action for damages pursuant to this title, the consumer shall do the following: (1) Notify the person alleged to have employed or committed the methods, *1016 acts, or practices declared unlawful by…”
Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez, 230 Cal. App. 4th 459 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “” *471 Civil Code section 1782, subdivision (a) of the CLRA requires a notice and demand as a prerequisite for a legal action for damages.”
Asghari v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Whether Plaintiffs’ CLRA Claims Should Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Statutory Notice Requirements A plaintiff seeking damages under the CLRA must provide notice to the defendant under California Civil Code § 1782(a). The statute states that at least thirty days prior…”
In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig., 280 F. Supp. 3d 975 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The FACMC alleges that the California plaintiffs “provided FCA with notice of its violations of the CLRA pui'suant to CAL. CIV. CODE § 1782(a),” and that “[t]he notice was transmitted to FCA on July 8, 2016.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1782(a) — 41 cases
Asghari v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
“Whether Plaintiffs’ CLRA Claims Should Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Statutory Notice Requirements A plaintiff seeking damages under the CLRA must provide notice to the defendant under California Civil Code § 1782(a). The statute states that at least thirty days prior…”
Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011).
“Cal. Civ.Code § 1782. It then refused certification of the remainder of the CLRA action (injunctive relief 15 ) in Mancini on the basis that because reliance had to be shown as to the class members, Rule 23(b)(3) had not been complied with.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1782(a)(1) — 3 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 1782(b) — 5 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 1782(c) — 4 cases
Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011).
“Cal. Civ.Code § 1782. It then refused certification of the remainder of the CLRA action (injunctive relief 15 ) in Mancini on the basis that because reliance had to be shown as to the class members, Rule 23(b)(3) had not been complied with.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1782(d) — 8 cases
In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig., 280 F. Supp. 3d 975 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
“The FACMC alleges that the California plaintiffs “provided FCA with notice of its violations of the CLRA pui'suant to CAL. CIV. CODE § 1782(a),” and that “[t]he notice was transmitted to FCA on July 8, 2016.”
Stickrath v. Globalstar, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
“Such statements sufficiently put Defendant on notice of the CLRA violations alleged by Plaintiffs in this case, and the Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the notice requirement under California Civil Code section 1782. IY. Whether…”
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.