• The Complex Litigator Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • CLASS RE-ACTION PODCAST
  • MCLE
Menu

The Complex Litigator

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number
a California-centric collection of comments and resources about complex litigation and class action practice

The Complex Litigator

  • The Complex Litigator Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • CLASS RE-ACTION PODCAST
  • MCLE

In Rose v. Bank of America, California Supreme Court holds that UCL may borrow federal laws even after civil action provisions are removed

August 1, 2013 H. Scott Leviant
GreatSealCalNew100.jpg

This will be a very short post on the subject, but the California Supreme Court issued a decision today on the question of whether a UCL claim may be based on the violation of a federal statute after  the civil remedy provision was repealed by Congress.  In Rose v. Bank of America (August 1, 2013), the Supreme Court held that it could.  Describing the issue, the Court said:   "May a claim of unlawful business practice under California's unfair competition law be based on violations of a federal statute, after Congress has repealed a provision of that statute authorizing civil actions for damages?"  Slip op., at 1. 

The Court unanimously held that it could: 

 Whether framed in terms of preemption or not, the issue before us is a narrow one.  The Bank and the courts below have taken the position that Congress ruled out any private enforcement of TISA by repealing former section 4310.  However, considerations of congressional intent favor plaintiffs.  By leaving TISA’s savings clause in place, Congress explicitly approved the enforcement of state laws “relating to the disclosure of yields payable or terms for accounts . . . except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with the provisions of this subtitle, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.”  (§ 4312.)  The UCL is such a state law.

Slip op., at 4.   The Court then emphasized that the UCL does not "enforce" other laws.  A violation of the UCL is independently actionable in its own right:

Contrary to the Bank’s insistence that plaintiffs are suing to enforce TISA, a UCL action does not “enforce” the law on which a claim of unlawful business practice is based.  “By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, [Business and Professions Code] ‘section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices’ that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.  [Citations.]”  (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 180, italics added.)  In Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 570 (Stop Youth Addiction), we explained the independent nature of a UCL action.  There the UCL claim was based on alleged violations of Penal Code section 308, which bans the sale of cigarettes to minors.  The defendant contended the suit was barred because Penal Code section 308 and the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act (STAKE Act; Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 22950- 22959) “embodie[d] the Legislature’s intent to create a comprehensive, exclusive scheme for combating the sale of tobacco to minors.”  (Stop Youth Addiction, at p. 560.)  We rejected this argument, and emphasized that the plaintiff was enforcing the UCL, not the statutes underlying their claim of unlawful business practice. 

Slip op., at 6.  UCL still has teeth in the view of the California Supreme Court, it would seem.  Check with The UCL Practitioner later for Kim Kralowec's write-up on this case.  She will no doubt have some other interesting observations.

By H. Scott Leviant. Editor and site author H. Scott Leviant can be found on Google+, Twitter and LinkedIn, among other places.

In Complex Litigation: Pre-emption, Class Actions: Consumer Issues Tags UCL, Pre-emption, Consumer Law
← The biggest move...Episode 4 of the Class Re-Action Podcast is now available →

Subscribe to The Complex Litigator RSS feed.

Troester v. Starbucks Corporation Briefs/Links (with Opinion Link)


The Complex Litigator Home
I'm moving to an up-and-coming employment law firm...
about 6 hours ago
In Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing, Ninth Circuit extends Syed, holding that FCRA precludes all surplussage in background check disclosures
about 2 weeks ago
Petition for Review of PAGA decision denied in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA
about 4 months ago
Check out the September 12, 2018 edition of the Daily Journal for a pithy comment on Troester
about 5 months ago
Central District of California Local Rule 23-3 finally addressed in published Ninth Circuit opinion
about 5 months ago
Petition for Rehearing Denied in Troester v. Starbucks; Minimal change to Opinion
about 5 months ago
Episode 19 of the Class Re-Action Podcast is Now Available
about 6 months ago
BREAKING: Opinion in Troester v. Starbucks now available -- Holds No Federal De Minimis Defense to CA Wage and Hour Laws and no CA De Minimis Defense on Facts in Record
about 6 months ago
BREAKING NEWS: Troester v. Starbucks opinion will be released tomorrow
about 6 months ago
Eastern District of California, reeling under its load, requests additional judgeships
about 7 months ago

  • I'm moving to an up-and-coming employment law firm... https://t.co/zFClK8nvGf
    about 6 hours ago
  • In Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing, Ninth Circuit extends Syed, holding that FCRA precludes all surplussge in backgro… https://t.co/3QsoYtA0Fl
    about 2 weeks ago
  • Twitter Permanently Bans GayPatriot Bruce Carroll, Cites Kafka for Precedent https://t.co/rmC208kTsY #VodkaPundit v… https://t.co/Wvd7YgRdAZ
    about 4 months ago
  • RT @BreitbartNews: If the BB account gets banned for poasting this link, it's still worth it. https://t.co/U1mlXBuAmD
    about 4 months ago


  • February 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (1)
  • October 2018 (1)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (6)
  • June 2018 (3)
  • May 2018 (7)
  • April 2018 (3)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • September 2017 (6)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (2)
  • January 2017 (1)
  • December 2016 (5)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (3)
  • September 2016 (7)
  • August 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (3)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (3)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • September 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (4)
  • June 2014 (3)
  • May 2014 (3)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (8)
  • January 2014 (4)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • November 2013 (3)
  • October 2013 (3)
  • September 2013 (6)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (4)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (6)
  • March 2013 (13)
  • February 2013 (7)
  • January 2013 (3)
  • December 2012 (7)
  • November 2012 (5)
  • October 2012 (5)
  • September 2012 (5)
  • August 2012 (4)
  • July 2012 (1)
  • June 2012 (5)
  • May 2012 (5)
  • April 2012 (9)
  • March 2012 (2)
  • February 2012 (7)
  • January 2012 (13)
  • December 2011 (2)
  • November 2011 (4)
  • October 2011 (4)
  • September 2011 (3)
  • August 2011 (4)
  • July 2011 (7)
  • June 2011 (9)
  • May 2011 (7)
  • April 2011 (19)
  • March 2011 (6)
  • February 2011 (9)
  • January 2011 (15)
  • December 2010 (16)
  • November 2010 (12)
  • October 2010 (14)
  • September 2010 (14)
  • August 2010 (18)
  • July 2010 (16)
  • June 2010 (11)
  • May 2010 (15)
  • April 2010 (25)
  • March 2010 (19)
  • February 2010 (12)
  • January 2010 (17)
  • December 2009 (11)
  • November 2009 (16)
  • October 2009 (19)
  • September 2009 (21)
  • August 2009 (16)
  • July 2009 (16)
  • June 2009 (16)
  • May 2009 (21)
  • April 2009 (13)
  • March 2009 (17)
  • February 2009 (21)
  • January 2009 (22)
  • December 2008 (14)
  • November 2008 (11)
  • October 2008 (12)
  • September 2008 (12)
  • August 2008 (19)
  • July 2008 (26)
  • June 2008 (28)
  • May 2008 (36)
  • April 2008 (30)
  • March 2008 (3)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

note: although this site contains no offers to provide legal services, is not intended as such, and is not such an offer, some jurisdictions may nevertheless assert that this site constitutes an advertisement by an attorney.  please be aware of the possibility of such a classification as you view this site.

powered by squarespace