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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2013 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Community Assisting Recovery, Inc. v. Aegis Security Insurancegreen2 sentences2011Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 398 .) Rejecting that claim, the court concluded that “plaintiff’s complaint does not state an ‘unlawful business practice’ under the UCL because the simplistic legal formulation of the claim [(1)] mischaracterizes the holding in Jefferson and [(2)] fails to take into consideration the safeguard of the appraisal process provided by the Legislature within Insurance Code section 2071.” (Community Assisting, supra, at p. 892.) The unlawful business practice claim asserted in this case is distinguishable on both of the grounds cited in Community Assisting, su 2011The plaintiff in Community Assisting also asserted an unlawful business practice claim based on the allegation that the defendants were “ ‘adjusting property loss claims on the basis of replacement cost less depreciation rather than on the basis of fair market value, in violation of the mandates set forth in Jefferson ....’” (Community Assisting, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 891, citing Jefferson Ins. | 1 | 2 |
Schnall v. Hertz Corporationgreen2 sentences2005That statute defines “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1.” “ ‘By proscribing “any unlawful” business practice, “section 17200 ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices” that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.’ ” (Schnall v. Hertz Corp. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1153 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 439 ].) By alleging violations of The Act, the second cause of action alleges unfair competition that is “unla 2005That statute defines “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1.” “ ‘By proscribing “any unlawful” business practice, “section 17200 ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices” that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.’ ” (Schnall v. Hertz Corp. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1153 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 439 ].) By alleging violations of The Act, the second cause of action alleges unfair competition that is “unla | 1 | 1 |
Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.green2 sentences2002He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 978 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ].) The defense can be asserted against an abuse of process claim (see id. at pp. 978, 986 [defense applies in legal as well as equitable actions; defense applied to cause of action for malicious prosecution]), and we will assume without deciding that the defense can be advanced in a motion to strike an unlawful business practice claim (but see Cortez v. Purolator A 2002He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 978 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ].) The defense can be asserted against an abuse of process claim (see id. at pp. 978, 986 [defense applies in legal as well as equitable actions; defense applied to cause of action for malicious prosecution]), and we will assume without deciding that the defense can be advanced in a motion to strike an unlawful business practice claim (but see Cortez v. Purolator A | 1 | 1 |
Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2002He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 978 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ].) The defense can be asserted against an abuse of process claim (see id. at pp. 978, 986 [defense applies in legal as well as equitable actions; defense applied to cause of action for malicious prosecution]), and we will assume without deciding that the defense can be advanced in a motion to strike an unlawful business practice claim (but see Cortez v. Purolator A 2002He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 978 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ].) The defense can be asserted against an abuse of process claim (see id. at pp. 978, 986 [defense applies in legal as well as equitable actions; defense applied to cause of action for malicious prosecution]), and we will assume without deciding that the defense can be advanced in a motion to strike an unlawful business practice claim (but see Cortez v. Purolator A | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jefferson Insurance of New York v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2011Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 398 .) Rejecting that claim, the court concluded that “plaintiff’s complaint does not state an ‘unlawful business practice’ under the UCL because the simplistic legal formulation of the claim [(1)] mischaracterizes the holding in Jefferson and [(2)] fails to take into consideration the safeguard of the appraisal process provided by the Legislature within Insurance Code section 2071.” (Community Assisting, supra, at p. 892.) The unlawful business practice claim asserted in this case is distinguishable on both of the grounds cited in Community Assisting, su 2011Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 398 .) Rejecting that claim, the court concluded that “plaintiff’s complaint does not state an ‘unlawful business practice’ under the UCL because the simplistic legal formulation of the claim [(1)] mischaracterizes the holding in Jefferson and [(2)] fails to take into consideration the safeguard of the appraisal process provided by the Legislature within Insurance Code section 2071.” (Community Assisting, supra, at p. 892.) The unlawful business practice claim asserted in this case is distinguishable on both of the grounds cited in Community Assisting, su | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Stevens v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2006However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Wayne’s first cause of action in his putative class action complaint, alleging Staples engaged in the sale of inland marine insurance without a license is an unlawful business practice in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.1 concede that a private plaintiff may bring an action under section 17200 for violations of licensing provisions of the Insurance Code as held in Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 370 ], but I find no reason to sidestep the well established “principa 2006I concede that a private plaintiff may bring an action under section 17200 for violations of licensing provisions of the insurance code as held in Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594 , 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 370 , but I find no reason to sidestep the well established "principal-object-and-purpose test" in determining whether Staples was engaged in the sale of insurance. | 1 | 2006–2006 |