Cohen panel tackles Tobacco II again in Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Superior Court
/
The Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) generated a good bit of commentary with their construction of In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc. (October 28, 2009) was discussed in detail on this blog, and The UCL Practitioner had an extensive post as well. In Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Superior Court (November 10, 2009), the Second Appellate District, Division Eight tackles reliance and Tobacco II for the second time. But, in an interesting twist, Cohen receives no mention in this Opinion.
Princess Cruise Lines is, ostensibly, a summary judgment opinion. Although it is not discussed in any detail, it appears that the summary judgment motion was brought pre-certification. The Court described the causes of action asserted and the basics of the trial court's ruling:
The plaintiffs, real parties in interest in the proceedings before us, H. Roger Wang and Vivine Wang (from time to time collectively referred to as the Wangs), sued petitioner Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., over charges added to the price of shore excursions taken during a cruise conducted by petitioner. The Wangs asserted five causes of action. The first three were based on Business and Professions Code sections 17200 (first cause of action) and 17500 (second) and on Civil Code section 1750 et seq. (third). Respectively, these statutes are California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The fourth and fifth causes of action were based respectively on common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
Petitioner moved for summary judgment and summary adjudication. The trial court granted summary adjudication on the fourth and fifth causes of action because the Wangs could not show they relied on petitioner’s alleged misrepresentations. The trial court, however, denied the motion for summary judgment because it concluded that on the UCL, FAL and CLRA causes of action the Wangs did not have to show that they relied on petitioner’s alleged misrepresentations.
Slip op., at 2. After summarizing the discovery in the action and the trial court's rulings, the Court of Appeal discussed the issue of reliance in UCL and CLRA actions:
The court in Tobacco II first concluded that only the class representatives must meet the standing requirement under California’s UCL. The court then proceeded to the next topic, which was “the causation requirement for purposes of establishing standing under the UCL, and in particular what is the meaning of the phrase ‘as a result of’ in [Business and Professions Code] section 17204? We conclude that a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as the basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions.” (Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th 298, 306.)
There are two aspects to this holding. First, it is very clear that reliance is required in a UCL action. Second, it is also clear that this is true of UCL actions involving some form of fraud, but not all UCL actions. As the court put it: “We emphasize that our discussion of causation in this case is limited to such cases where, as here, a UCL action is based on a fraud theory involving false advertising and misrepresentations to consumers. The UCL defines ‘unfair competition’ as ‘includ[ing] any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .’ ([Bus. & Prof. Code,] § 17200.) There are doubtless many types of unfair business practices in which the concept of reliance, as discussed here, has no application.” (Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th 298, 325, fn. 17.)
Slip op., at 6-7. Unlike Cohen, this Opinion presents as an effort to identify specific circumstances where it is valid to consider reliance in a UCL claim, using Tobacco II. In fact, its almost as if the Court was sensitive to potential fallout from describing Tobacco II as irrelevant.
In any event, the Court then, as one would expect in a summary judgment analysis, focused on the evidence presented by the plaintiffs:
The problem, from a pragmatic perspective, with the Wangs’ contentions about reliance is that it made no difference to them how much the excursions cost. As Vivine Wang put it in her deposition, she told her travel agent that she wanted to go on the same excursions that her traveling group had booked and that “I want to go on the shore excursion . . . whatever it cost [sic]. It’s fine.” At the threshold, therefore, it must be said that there was no reliance, i.e., the Wangs would have gone on the excursions whatever the price was and without reference to anything petitioner said or did in connection with the excursions. It therefore follows that it is immaterial how the Wangs heard about the excursions and what, if anything, petitioner said or wrote about the excursions.
It must also be said that we are not inclined to ignore the Wangs’ repeated admissions that they had no contact with petitioner and received nothing from the petitioner.
Slip op., at 8. The Court does its best to circumvent the reliance questions it raised in Cohen by citing Tobacco II for the contention that there is a limited area under the UCL where reliance can be an element of the claim, followed by a finding that the record contains admissions of absolutely no reliance.
Next, the Court issued an interesting holding that the Tobacco II discussion about reliance in certain limited situations in UCL cases applies to CLRA actions as well:
Civil Code section 1780, subdivision (a) provides: “Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 may bring an action against that person to recover or obtain any of the following: [listing generic types of recoveries].” (Italics added.)
It appears that the analysis of the phrase “as a result” found in Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th 298, 324-326, applies to this phrase in Civil Code section 1780, subdivision (a), which means that reliance is required for CLRA actions, with the limitations noted in Tobacco II.
Slip op., at 11-12.
So, if Cohen is enough of a lightning rod to elicit review, this one may escape that same fate.
