Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2022 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.green1 sentence2021(Mervyn’s, at pp. 227-228 [law had previously authorized any person acting for the general public to sue, and Prop. 64, approved by voters in November 2, 2004, deleted this language].) We held that applying the proposition to pending cases “is not to apply [it] ‘retroactively,’ as we have defined that term, because the measure does not change the legal consequences of past conduct by imposing new or different liabilities based on such conduct.” (Mervyn’s, at p. 232; see id. at p. 231 [distinguishing Myers, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 240 , where the new law “subjected tobacco sellers to tort liabi | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Farmers Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences2021(Davis, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at 1318, 1326 .) Here, in contrast, Moinuddin’s prayer both generally sought injunctive relief and specifically requested Caltrans adhere to its obligation to provide a retaliation-free workplace. 2021(Davis, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at 1318, 1326 .) Here, in contrast, Moinuddin’s prayer both generally sought injunctive relief and specifically requested Caltrans adhere to its obligation to provide a retaliation-free workplace. | 1 | 1 |
Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.green1 sentence2016Code, § 1750 et seq.), the attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff prior to litigation to obtain relief for the plaintiff when other class members have yet to obtain that relief (Kagan v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 582, 592-593 , overruled in part by Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 641-643 [discussing Kagan on this point]). | 1 | 1 |
Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.green1 sentence2014(Lippitt, supra, 340 F.3d at p. 1036.) Although the plaintiffs’ complaint tracked the language of the NYSE rules, defendants could not “federalize” the case on that basis. | 1 | 1 |
Roskind v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.green1 sentence2014(Roskind v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 345, 352 (Roskind) [“ ‘Congress plainly contemplated the possibility of dual litigation in state and federal courts relating to securities transactions.’ ”]; Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 690 , 704–706 [“As has already been pointed out, the rights and remedies provided by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 “ ‘shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity.’ ”].) 57 In Lippitt, defendants sought removal of plaintiff’s California Unfair Competit | 1 | 1 |
Bank of the West v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2013Rather, to state an unfair competition law claim “one need only show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” (Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 ].) “Unlawful” business activity under the unfair competition law, as is alleged in this case, includes “ ‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’ ” (Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 113 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 496 P.2d 817 ].) Thus, the unfair competition law “ ‘ “borrows” violations 2013Rather, to state an unfair competition law claim “one need only show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” (Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 ].) “Unlawful” business activity under the unfair competition law, as is alleged in this case, includes “ ‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’ ” (Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 113 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 496 P.2d 817 ].) Thus, the unfair competition law “ ‘ “borrows” violations | 1 | 1 |
Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.green2 sentences2013Rather, to state an unfair competition law claim “one need only show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” (Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 ].) “Unlawful” business activity under the unfair competition law, as is alleged in this case, includes “ ‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’ ” (Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 113 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 496 P.2d 817 ].) Thus, the unfair competition law “ ‘ “borrows” violations 2013Rather, to state an unfair competition law claim “one need only show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” (Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 ].) “Unlawful” business activity under the unfair competition law, as is alleged in this case, includes “ ‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’ ” (Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 113 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 496 P.2d 817 ].) Thus, the unfair competition law “ ‘ “borrows” violations | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.green2 sentences2009There is no provision for such a right for a successful defendant.” (Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1179 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ], italics added (Walker)) Thus, “where a plaintiff sues solely under the unfair competition law, fees may not be recovered by a prevailing defendant. 2009There is no provision for such a right for a successful defendant.” (Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1179 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ], italics added (Walker)) Thus, “where a plaintiff sues solely under the unfair competition law, fees may not be recovered by a prevailing defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.green2 sentences2002(Cel-Tech Communications, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 179 ; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 173 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [“It [an action brought pursuant to the unfair competition law] is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract action”]; see also Shadoan v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 97 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 207 ] (Shadoan).) If a plaintiff prevails in an unfair competition law claim, it may seek attorney fees as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 2002(Cel-Tech Communications, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 179 ; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 173 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [“It [an action brought pursuant to the unfair competition law] is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract action”]; see also Shadoan v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 97 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 207 ] (Shadoan).) If a plaintiff prevails in an unfair competition law claim, it may seek attorney fees as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. | 1 | 1 |
Shadoan v. World Savings & Loan Assn.green2 sentences2002(Cel-Tech Communications, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 179 ; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 173 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [“It [an action brought pursuant to the unfair competition law] is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract action”]; see also Shadoan v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 97 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 207 ] (Shadoan).) If a plaintiff prevails in an unfair competition law claim, it may seek attorney fees as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 2002(Cel-Tech Communications, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 179 ; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 173 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [“It [an action brought pursuant to the unfair competition law] is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract action”]; see also Shadoan v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 97 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 207 ] (Shadoan).) If a plaintiff prevails in an unfair competition law claim, it may seek attorney fees as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2013Rather, to state an unfair competition law claim “one need only show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” (Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 ].) “Unlawful” business activity under the unfair competition law, as is alleged in this case, includes “ ‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’ ” (Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 113 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 496 P.2d 817 ].) Thus, the unfair competition law “ ‘ “borrows” violations 2009(Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 179 .) “If a plaintiff prevails in an unfair competition law claim, it may seek attorney fees as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. | 3 | 2002–2013 |
Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp.
red
1 sentence2022Although an unfair competition law claim may be superseded by CUTSA if it “sound[s] in misappropriation of trade secrets and state[s] no basis for relief outside of CUTSA” (Silvaco, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 241 ), the computer-related claims do not depend on misappropriation of trade secrets. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
green
1 sentence2022(See Cahill, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956 .) In conclusion, Tenet has failed to discharge its burden of establishing that the arbitral panel made an error of law or legal reasoning in adjudicating the merits of the unfair competition law claim. 2. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLC
green
1 sentence2021In Mervyn’s, supra, 39 Cal.4th 223 , we addressed whether Proposition 64’s rule, which restricted standing to bring an unfair competition law claim to plaintiffs who have suffered an injury in fact and have lost money or property, applied to pending cases. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Nelson v. Kellogg
green
1 sentence2016(Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 4 Because plaintiff’s HBOR and Consent Judgment claim, as well as her Unfair Competition Law claim, are subject to dismissal for these reasons, we need not reach the alternative bases for dismissal argued by the parties on appeal. 8 1318, 1337-1338; Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 ; David v. Hermann (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 672, 688 .) And a further exception allows a plaintiff to recover, as damages, the attorney’s fees incurred prior to suing the defendant in a narrow universe of specified types of cas | 1 | 2016–2016 |
David v. Hermann
green
1 sentence2016(Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 4 Because plaintiff’s HBOR and Consent Judgment claim, as well as her Unfair Competition Law claim, are subject to dismissal for these reasons, we need not reach the alternative bases for dismissal argued by the parties on appeal. 8 1318, 1337-1338; Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 ; David v. Hermann (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 672, 688 .) And a further exception allows a plaintiff to recover, as damages, the attorney’s fees incurred prior to suing the defendant in a narrow universe of specified types of cas | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bertero v. National General Corp.
green
1 sentence2016(Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 4 Because plaintiff’s HBOR and Consent Judgment claim, as well as her Unfair Competition Law claim, are subject to dismissal for these reasons, we need not reach the alternative bases for dismissal argued by the parties on appeal. 8 1318, 1337-1338; Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 ; David v. Hermann (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 672, 688 .) And a further exception allows a plaintiff to recover, as damages, the attorney’s fees incurred prior to suing the defendant in a narrow universe of specified types of cas | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kagan v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Ass'n
yellow
1 sentence2016Code, § 1750 et seq.), the attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff prior to litigation to obtain relief for the plaintiff when other class members have yet to obtain that relief (Kagan v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 582, 592-593 , overruled in part by Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 641-643 [discussing Kagan on this point]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Sumner Hill Homeowners' Ass'n v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC
green
1 sentence2016(Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 4 Because plaintiff’s HBOR and Consent Judgment claim, as well as her Unfair Competition Law claim, are subject to dismissal for these reasons, we need not reach the alternative bases for dismissal argued by the parties on appeal. 8 1318, 1337-1338; Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 ; David v. Hermann (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 672, 688 .) And a further exception allows a plaintiff to recover, as damages, the attorney’s fees incurred prior to suing the defendant in a narrow universe of specified types of cas | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp.
green
1 sentence2016(Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 4 Because plaintiff’s HBOR and Consent Judgment claim, as well as her Unfair Competition Law claim, are subject to dismissal for these reasons, we need not reach the alternative bases for dismissal argued by the parties on appeal. 8 1318, 1337-1338; Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 ; David v. Hermann (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 672, 688 .) And a further exception allows a plaintiff to recover, as damages, the attorney’s fees incurred prior to suing the defendant in a narrow universe of specified types of cas | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014(Roskind v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 345, 352 (Roskind) [“ ‘Congress plainly contemplated the possibility of dual litigation in state and federal courts relating to securities transactions.’ ”]; Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 690 , 704–706 [“As has already been pointed out, the rights and remedies provided by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 “ ‘shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity.’ ”].) 57 In Lippitt, defendants sought removal of plaintiff’s California Unfair Competit | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Community Assisting Recovery, Inc. v. Aegis Security Insurance
green
2 sentences2013Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 886 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ] (Community Assisting), the plaintiff brought an unfair competition law claim against 194 insurance companies, alleging they used the wrong standard to adjust property loss claims (replacement cost less depreciation, rather than the fair market value standard the Jefferson court had held was the proper standard), and seeking injunctive relief to compel readjustment of all claims based on fair market value (unless replacement cost less depreciation would be more favorable to the insured). {Community Assisting, at p. 890.) The appellate court 2013Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 886 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ] (Community Assisting), the plaintiff brought an unfair competition law claim against 194 insurance companies, alleging they used the wrong standard to adjust property loss claims (replacement cost less depreciation, rather than the fair market value standard the Jefferson court had held was the proper standard), and seeking injunctive relief to compel readjustment of all claims based on fair market value (unless replacement cost less depreciation would be more favorable to the insured). {Community Assisting, at p. 890.) The appellate court | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Haskell v. Time, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007(See Churchill Village L.L.C. v. General Electric Co. (N.D.Cal.2000) 169 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1131 ; Haskell v. Time, Inc. (E.D.Cal.1997) 965 F.Supp. 1398, 1407 .) Since plaintiff did not present any such evidence, defendants contend the judgment on these grounds must be reversed. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Electric Co.
green
1 sentence2007(See Churchill Village L.L.C. v. General Electric Co. (N.D.Cal.2000) 169 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1131 ; Haskell v. Time, Inc. (E.D.Cal.1997) 965 F.Supp. 1398, 1407 .) Since plaintiff did not present any such evidence, defendants contend the judgment on these grounds must be reversed. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.