In Cartwright, et al., v. Viking Industries, Inc., District Court certifies consumer class action claims under UCL, CLRA, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment theories

On September 11, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, issued a substantial class certification opinion in Cartwright, et al. v. Viking Industries, Inc. Cartwright is a consumer class action alleging that certain Viking windows are defective, allowing water and air intrusion into homes. The suit alleged claims for Strict Products Liability, Negligence, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Fraudulent Concealment, and Restitution.

The District Court ultimately certified a class for the following claims: CLRA, UCL, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. The District Court denied certification of strict liability and negligence claims. In a thorough opinion that emphasizes a number of pro-consumer certification decisions, the Court certified fraudulent concealment claims by allowing a presumption of reliance. The Court's analysis is as interesting for what it does not cite as for what it does cite. Tobacco II is not mentioned. But the Court does cite Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 254 F.R.D. 610 (C.D. Cal. 2008), which is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit following a 23(f) Petition for Permission to Appeal, and Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Corp., 223 F.R.D. 524, 526-27 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

The Opinion also cites to some principles of federal certification that may be surprising to practitioners that rarely venture outside of California's Superior Court. For instance, the Court notes that evidence inadmissible at trial, and, in particular, expert testimony, may be considered as part of a certification decision. "'On a motion for class certification, the court may consider evidence that may not be admissible at trial.'" Order, citing Mazza, 254 F.R.D. at 616 (citing, in turn, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974)). "'[R]obust gatekeeping of expert evidence is not required; rather, the court should ask only if expert evidence is "useful in evaluating whether class certification requirements have been met."' Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 240 F.R.D. 627, 635 (N.D. Cal. 2007)."

Now let's see if the acrobat.com embed object will display here:

If you don't see the flash object above, you can directly download the Order. Thanks to Mark Moore for the tip.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of August 17, 2009

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today. Notable results include:

• A transfer Order issued in Pfizer, Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano) following the decision in the lead case, In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009).  See also, additional comments in this post at The UCL Practitioner.
• A transfer Order issued in McAdams v. Monier following the decision in the lead case, In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009).
• A Petition for Review was denied in Olvera v. El Pollo Loco (arbitration agreement found unconscionable; no lucky for clucky).

Never say never: even CJAC's counsel agrees that sometimes unfair competition class actions are a viable tool for obtaining justice

The Civil Justice Association of California ("CJAC") is demonstrating that the "justice" isn't in their name for show.  Fred Hiestand, general counsel for CJAC, wants justice, and he's willing to file a class action against the City of Sacramento and allege unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 to get that justice.  Dave Gilson, Tort Reformer Wants His Day in Court (August 14, 2009) www.motherjones.com.  According to Legal Pad, CJAC's President, John Sullivan, lamented Hiestand's suit, saying, "Fred has been fighting against frivolous lawsuits for decades, and like a doctor fighting malaria, he’s become infected himself — and with the worse strain of the disease — class actions."  Cheryl Miller, Tort Reform Leader Brings Class Action 'Cause His Car Got Towed (August 14, 2009) legalpad.typepad.com.

In all seriousness, it is outrageous that a city would tow a car for parking in a no parking zone.  Those no parking zones are for special people, like lawyers, that are important and have important things to do, like eat dinner.  Those signs really mean no parking for regular people.  Why do lawyers have to put up with abuse like this?  I'm so angry I could just spit nails.  Sorry I can't blog more, but I need to run out to the street and tell that parking enforcement officer that the red stripe on the curb means "Reserved for The Complex Litigator!"  He has malaria, people - back off.

In Amalgamated, the companion opinion to Arias, the Supreme Court analyzes whether PAGA and UCL claims can be assigned by individuals to their labor union

June 29, 2009 was a busy day for California Supreme Court news.  In Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (First Transit, Inc.) (June 29, 2009), the California Supreme Court issued the second of companion opinions addressing aspects of California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”) and the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) (Cal. Lab. Code § 2698, et seq.). See previous post on Arias.  Because the decisional authority analyzing the recently-passed PAGA is sparse, Amalgamated is important to understanding the reach of PAGA and its role in securing civil penalties for California employees.

Amalgamated addressed two issues. First, the Supreme Court rhetorically asked whether “a plaintiff labor union that has not suffered actual injury under the unfair competition law, and that is not an ‘aggrieved employee’ under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, nevertheless bring a representative action under those laws (1) as the assignee of employees who have suffered an actual injury and who are aggrieved employees, or (2) as an association whose members have suffered actual injury and are aggrieved employees.” Slip op., at 2. Second, the Supreme Court asked whether “a representative action under the unfair competition law be brought as a class action.” Slip op., at 2.

As to the second issue, the Supreme Court noted that Arias sufficiently addressed that issue, holding that an action under the unfair competition law must be brought as a class action.

Before turning to the first issue, the procedural background of Amalgamated touches on a procedural practice recently the subject of appellate consideration.  If you have practiced in the Civil Central West courthouse in Los Angeles, you may be familiar with that Court’s former practice of allowing parties to obtain early determinations of “threshold” issues. See post on Magana Cathcart McCarthy v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (May 21, 2009) (holding that early determination of "threshold issues" is not a substitute for the summary adjudication procedural requirements). As in Magana, the parties in Amalgamated briefed threshold issues. The trial court found that plaintiff unions lacked standing under the unfair competition law because the union had not suffered any injury themselves. The trial court further found that the unions lacked standing under PAGA because they were not “aggrieved employees.” The unions appealed and a divided Court of Appeal denied the petition.

The Supreme Court, however, granted the Petition and affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The unions could not be assigned the right to sue under the unfair competition law as a result of amendments passed as part of Proposition 64. The Supreme Court reasoned that the new requirement of “injury in fact” would be undermined by allowing non-injured assignees to stand in the shoes of the injured parties.

With direct standing through assignment precluded, associational standing was next considered.  The Supreme Court found that the post-Proposition 64 UCL was at odds with the doctrine of associational standing: In proposing the amendment to the unfair competition law, section 1 of Proposition 64 sets forth its findings and declarations of purpose. Subdivision (e) of section 1 states: “It is the intent of California voters in enacting this act to prohibit private attorneys from filing lawsuits for unfair competition where they have no client who has been injured in fact under the standing requirements of the United States Constitution.” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004) text of proposed law, p. 109, italics added.) That intent is reflected in the amended statutory language stating that an unfair competition law action can be brought only by a person who has suffered “injury in fact.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204, italics added.) This standing requirement is inconsistent with the federal doctrine of associational standing. That doctrine applies only when the plaintiff association has not itself suffered actual injury but is seeking to act on behalf of its members who have sustained such injury.

Slip op. at p. 10.  Hence, the unions could neither be assigned the right to sue or bring suit as an association whose members had suffered actual injury.

Regarding PAGA, the Supreme Court repeated comments from Arias, observing:

In bringing such an action, the aggrieved employee acts as the proxy or agent of state labor law enforcement agencies, representing the same legal right and interest as those agencies, in a proceeding that is designed to protect the public, not to benefit private parties. (Arias v. Superior Court, supra, ___ Cal.4th ___, ___ [pp. 16-17]; see People v. Pacific Land Research Co. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 10, 17.)

Slip op. at p. 8.  Keeping with the theme from Arias, it is interesting that the Supreme Court has again pointed out that, under PAGA, an aggrieved employee acts like a “proxy or agent” of the state labor law enforcement agencies.

Because PAGA created neither a property right nor any other substantive right, and because it did not create any legal obligations, PAGA claims cannot be assigned. That prohibition on assignment is not new; rather, it is consistent with previous Supreme Court holdings that preclude the assignment of a right to collect statutory penalties.  Further, because PAGA allows only an aggrieved employee to bring an action to recover civil penalties, unions are foreclosed from asserting PAGA claims on behalf of their members. In effect, there is no associational standing available for a claim uniquely assigned to the employee by the State.

[Editor’s Note: A Contributing Author byline has been added for Shawn Westrick, given that he did not flake after one post.]

Arias v. Superior Court (June 29, 2009) analyzes certification obligations under two of California's representative action statutes

[Editor’s Note: This post was prepared by new Contributing Author, Shawn Westrick. Mr. Westrick is an attorney at Initiative Legal Group, LLP, and it is the Editor’s hope that this column is the first of many such posts. Mr. Westrick has spent considerable time in his career litigating PAGA issues, and the Arias decision was of particular interest as source material for a first blog post submission.]

By Shawn Westrick:

In Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy) (June 29, 2009), the California Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated opinion addressing when conventional class action procedural requirements must be met in representative actions filed against employers.

Plaintiff Jose Arias sued his employer Angelo Dairy, alleging, among other things, violations of the unfair competition law and under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) (Cal. Lab. Code § 2698, et seq.). The trial court granted defendant’s motion to strike the causes of action based on the unfair competition law. The trial court’s reasoning was that claims brought under the unfair competition law and PAGA had to plead class action requirements.

In essence, the appellate court affirmed a portion of the trial court’s Order, directing the trial court to “issue a new order striking the representative claims alleged in the seventh through tenth causes of action, but not the eleventh cause of action” (slip op., at 3), the eleventh cause of action being the claim arising under PAGA.

The Supreme Court began its analysis with a thorough discussion of Proposition 64. Proposition 64 amended the unfair competition law to ensure that a plaintiff suffering injury in fact must comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 382. However, Proposition 64 did not specifically use the phrase “class action” in any of its statutory language. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that a literal construction would frustrate the purpose of Proposition 64. A review of the Voter Information Guide, the official summary of Proposition 64, and the ballot measure summary suggested that the purpose of Proposition 64 was to require plaintiffs to meet the requirements for a class action.

Turning to PAGA, the Supreme Court then analyzed the question of whether PAGA claims must be certified as class actions to proceed on a representative basis. As an important distinction to be aware of, it has already been determined that actions under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 may be brought as class actions. (Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1173.) At issue in Arias was whether such actions must be brought as a class action. Beginning its discussion, the Supreme Court noted that the statute was passed because of the lack of adequate financing for labor law enforcement. Employees would act as private attorneys general to collect civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code:

Before bringing a civil action for statutory penalties, an employee must comply with Labor Code section 2699.3. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a).) That statute requires the employee to give written notice of the alleged Labor Code violation to both the employer and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and the notice must describe facts and theories supporting the violation. (Id., § 2699.3, subd. (a).) If the agency notifies the employee and the employer that it does not intend to investigate (as occurred here), or if the agency fails to respond within 33 days, the employee may then bring a civil action against the employer. (Id., § 2699.3, subd. (a)(2)(A).) If the agency decides to investigate, it then has 120 days to do so. If the agency decides not to issue a citation, or does not issue a citation within 158 days after the postmark date of the employee‘s notice, the employee may commence a civil action. (Id., § 2699.3, subd. (a)(2)(B).)

Slip op., at 9.

The Supreme Court rejected the employer’s convoluted argument that permitting employees to proceed with representative actions that did not satisfy class action requirements would cause absurd results. Explaining the strange reasoning of the employer, the Supreme Court said:

Defendants read the Court of Appeal‘s decision as holding that class action requirements do not apply to actions under Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (a) only because class action requirements are "provisions of law" and subdivision (a) says that it applies regardless of, or notwithstanding, "any other provision of law." Defendants then argue that because Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (g) does not contain subdivision (a)'s "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law" language, it follows that actions under that subdivision must comply with class action requirements. According to defendants, to conclude that subdivision (g) actions must satisfy class action requirements but subdivision (a) actions need not is "absurd" and therefore the Court of Appeal's statutory construction must be wrong. We disagree.

Slip op., at 11. According to the Supreme Court, Defendants' argument presupposed that class action requirements apply to all representative actions unless the Legislature affirmatively precludes their application by inserting the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law," or similar words, in the statute authorizing the representative action. The Court rejected that assumption.

The Supreme Court then turned to the employer’s argument that the legislative history required PAGA actions be brought as class actions. The Supreme Court noted that some committee reports expressed concerns that PAGA would allow employees to sue as a class action and some commentators were concerned that without a class action there could be no preclusive effects. The Supreme Court rejected committee report comments as insufficient to demonstrate any particular legislative intent regarding certification of PAGA claims.

The Court then turned to the due process issue of collateral estoppel. The employer argued that in the absence of class action requirements, employers would be subject to constant one-way intervention, violating their rights to due process. However an action under PAGA is binding not only on the named employee but also on the government agencies and any aggrieved employee not a party to the proceeding. An employee suing under PAGA does so as a “proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.” Slip op., at p. 16. The employee can only bring a PAGA action after giving written notice pursuant to Section 2699.3. Id. An employee acts as a substitute for “the government itself” and a “judgment in an action binds all those ... who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government.” Slip op., at p. 17.

Overall, the Court’s decision on the unfair competition law is straightforward. The long term effect of the Court’s foray into res judicata could have far reaching consequences for class actions in California. Taken as a whole, Arias should be a lesson to lawyers representing employers during settlements. Arias is clear that a PAGA action can only be commenced by adhering to the requirements under Section 2699.3. Slip op., at p. 16. In conjunction with the Supreme Court’s suggestion that the State of California has a vested interest in the civil penalties in PAGA, employers who settle class actions but do not settle PAGA actions with an employee who is authorized to file a PAGA action may find themselves liable for civil penalties owed to California (and, if authorized, other employees) for the same time period and the same class members who participated in a previous class action.

[Full Disclosure: Mr. Westrick is counsel in the matter of Deleon v. Verizon Wireless, in which the Supreme Court issued a “grant and hold” Order pending disposition of Arias. The Deleon matter directly raises the issue of whether settlement of wage & hour claims implicitly settles PAGA claims based upon the same underlying violations.]

Supreme Court will issue opinion in Arias v. Superior Court (Dairy, RPI) and other cases on Monday, June 29, 2009

The Supreme Court pre-announces the release of opinions one business day before they are made available to the public.  This morning, the Supreme Court announced forthcoming decisions in two cases that are of interest to wage & hour class/mass action practitioners.  The first, Arias v. Superior Court (Dairy, RPI), concerns issues related to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  The Court lists two questions that will be answered in the opinion:  "(1) Must an employee who is suing an employer for labor law violations on behalf of himself and others under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203) bring his representative claims as a class action? (2) Must an employee who is pursuing such claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2699) bring them as a class action?"

The Supreme Court will also render its opinion in Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO et al. v. Superior Court (First Transit, Inc., et al., RPI).  Amalgamated addresses novel issues under PAGA and the UCL:  "(1) Does a worker’s assignment to the worker’s union of a cause of action for meal and rest period violations carry with it the worker’s right to sue in a representative capacity under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) or the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)? (2) Does Business and Professions Code section 17203, as amended by Proposition 64, which provides that representative claims may be brought only if the injured claimant "complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure," require that private representative claims meet the procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits?"

BREAKING NEWS: Petition for Review granted in Kwikset Corporation v. Superior Court (Benson)

You may recall Kwikset Corporation v. Superior Court (Benson) (Feb. 25, 2009). That's the opinion in which the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Divsion Three) held that if you want to buy a "Made in U.S.A." product, and you spend money to get it, and that claim was false, in violation of California law, you still don't have standing to bring a UCL suit because you weren't damaged. On June 10, 2009, in a unanimous vote, the California Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review. When this lawsuit is finally resolved, the grandchildren of the current lawyers will be representing the decendents of the parties (Benson v. Kwikset was one of the Proposition 64 cases). See this post on The UCL Practitioner for a sharp commentary about the Court of Appeal's Opinion.

An unprecedented alliance of interests fails to elicit review or depublication of Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.

In a potentially singular confluence of interests, all parties in Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc., distressed that the Court of Appeal reissued its opinion despite their notice of settlement, filed a Joint Petition for Review on April 20, 2009. The 72-page opinion from the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) addresses issues of standing under the UCL, alter-ego liability and insurance service charges as premiums. The petition was filed by Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins for class plaintiffs, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for defendants, and Fulbright & Jaworski for third-party movants. Consumer Attorneys of California, among others, filed a letter seeking depublication on the grounds that the appellate court's ruling "threatens to upend settled law."

Despite that unholy alliance, on June 10, 2009 the Supreme Court denied the Joint Petition for Review and the Requests for Depublication.  Justices Baxter, Chin, and Corrigan were of the opinion that the petition should have been granted.  I can't say that this result offers encouragement to parties that finally work to settle their disputes.  Such polarized interests rarely agree on anything.  When they do, its a signal that careful scrutiny is in order.  However, others have suggested that if all the parties are unhappy with the result, there may be some validity to it.  (Note: The Recorder article on Law.com appears to have been authored before the Supreme Court's decision to deny the Petition was publicly available.)

In Clark v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal tackles a major, but novel question about the interplay between the UCL and statutory penalty provision protecting seniors

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, has been in the thick of many a difficult class action or class-related question.  Why should today be any different?  After all, I spent an hour and half driving about 8 miles to work, so everything seems to be functioning as intended in our fine City and State.  But I digress.  Today, the Division Seven, in Clark v. Superior Court (May 21, 2009) was asked to reconcile statutes with similar purposes (consumer protection) but very different means of implementing those purposes.  The question presented to the Court makes the challenge clear:

Civil Code section 3345 (section 3345) authorizes the award of an enhanced remedy—up to three times greater than the amount of a fine, civil penalty "or any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter" that would otherwise be awarded—in actions by or on behalf of senior citizens or disabled persons seeking to "redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition." Is this enhanced remedy available in a private action by senior citizens seeking restitution under California’s unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)?

(Slip op., at p. 2.)  Can the protected classification of senior citizens receive triple UCL restitution?  That's quite a question.  What might be more suprising at first blush is that the Court of Appeal said, "Yes."

Procedurally, after a class was certified, defendant National Western filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting section 3345’s enhanced, "treble damages" remedy was inapplicable to a private action under the unfair competition law.  The trial court granted the motion.  Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ, and the Court of Appeal granted the petition, issuing the writ.  By necessity, the Court of Appeal reviewed the two laws:

Since 1977 the unfair competition law has prohibited unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices or unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) and subjected violators in actions prosecuted by public prosecutors to civil penalties not exceeding $2,500 for each violation (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17206), as well as to injunctions and restitution orders (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203). Private plaintiffs may also prosecute actions under the unfair competition law, but their remedies are limited to orders for injunctions and restitution. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203.) Damages and penalties, whether compensatory or punitive, are prohibited. (Korea Supply, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1148 [only monetary relief available to private plaintiffs under unfair competition law is restitution; compensatory and punitive damages are not authorized]; Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 950 ["[i]n a suit under [unfair competition law], a public prosecutor may collect civil penalties, but a private plaintiff’s remedies are ‘generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution’"]; Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 179 [under unfair competition law "[p]laintiffs may not receive damages, much less treble damages, or attorney fees"].)

(Slip op., at pp. 5-6.)  Many years later, the legislature determined that senior citizens were regular targets of unfair competition schemes and required additional protection.  A variety of potential statutes and amendments to existing laws were considered, including revisions to the UCL and the CLRA.  (Slip op., at pp. 6-10.)  Sweeping legislation was finally passed.

As finally enacted the legislation effected three major changes to California’s consumer protection laws relating to senior citizens and disabled persons. First, it amended the unfair competition law by adding Business and Professions Code section 17206.1,8 which authorizes the Attorney General and prosecutors in civil enforcement proceedings to recover an added civil penalty up to $2,500 (in addition to the $2,500 civil penalty available under Business and Professions Code section 17206) when the unfair practice is perpetrated against a senior citizen or disabled person. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17206.1; Stats. 1988, ch. 823, § 1, pp. 2665-2666.)

Second, it amended the CLRA to authorize private litigants to recover, in addition to other remedies available under the act, including compensatory and punitive damages, an additional monetary award—up to $5,000—when the unfair practice prohibited by the act is perpetrated against a senior citizen or disabled person. (Civ. Code, § 1780, subd. (b)(1)(A)-(C); Stats. 1988, ch. 823, § 3, pp. 2667-2668.)

Third, it added section 3345 to the Civil Code, authorizing an enhanced remedy in actions brought by or on behalf of senior citizens seeking redress for "unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition." (§ 3345, subd. (a).) Section 3345, subdivision (a), limits the new provision to actions "brought by, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of senior citizens or disabled persons, as those terms are defined in subdivisions (f) and (g) of [Civil Code] Section 1761[10] to redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition." Section 3345, subdivision (b), provides the enhanced remedy: "Whenever a trier of fact is authorized by a statute to impose either a fine, or a civil penalty or other penalty, or any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter, and the amount of the fine, penalty, or other remedy is subject to the trier of fact’s discretion, the trier of fact shall consider all of the following factors, in addition to other appropriate factors, in determining the amount of fine, civil penalty or other penalty, or other remedy to impose. Whenever the trier of fact makes an affirmative finding in regard to one or more of the following factors, it may impose a fine, civil penalty or other penalty, or other remedy in an amount up to three times greater than authorized by the statute, or, where the statute does not authorize a specific amount, up to three times greater than the amount the trier of fact would impose in the absence of that affirmative finding."

(Slip op., at pp. 12-13.)  The Court then turned to the question:

Under the plain language of section 3345 two prerequisites must be satisfied before its enhanced remedy may apply: (1) The action must be brought by or on behalf of senior citizens or disabled persons seeking redress for "unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition"—plainly satisfied here; and (2) the action must be one in which the trier of fact is authorized by a statute to impose a fine, civil penalty or any other penalty the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter.

(Slip op., at p. 14.)  The Court then concluded that the enhanced restitution remedy was available:

Unlike Korea Supply and Cel-Tech, in this case the plaintiffs do not seek to justify monetary relief other than restitution under the unfair competition law: The enhanced remedy is sought under section 3345, a separate statute, which specifically authorizes such an enhanced remedy in unfair competition actions brought by senior citizens. We simply must presume the Legislature meant what it said when it provided section 3345 applied in unfair competition actions involving a fine, civil penalty or "any other remedy" the purpose of which is to punish or deter. (See People v. Toney (2004) 32 Cal.4th 228, 232 ["[i]f the statutory language is unambiguous, ‘we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs’"]; accord, Genlyte Group, LLC v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 705, 714; see also Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. (E.D. Cal. 2008) 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1227 ["[t]he text of the statute clearly indicates that section 3345 applies to the UCA [unfair competition law] and the CLRA, as both Acts prohibit ‘unfair practices’"].)

(Slip op., at p. 16-17.)  I can't imagine that this ruling won't at least generate a Petition for Review.

Update on 2009-05-22 04:52 by The Complex Litigator

UPDATE:  The Court of Appeal issued a modification to the opinion, adding a footnote with no change in the judgment.

Tobacco II Opinion generates widespread media coverage and commentary

Monday's Tobacco II Cases Opinion has generated extensive media coverage and commentary.  Here's a sample of the reactions:

• Courthouse News Service said, in a brief commentary, "Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the tobacco industry are not required to show that every member has relied on the tobacco industry's claims about cigarettes, the California Supreme Court ruled."
• In a press release issued through PRWeb's emediawire.com, commentary included: "This new ruling will clarify a number of legal issues, and will reject the idea that in a class action, each and every class member will have to show "reliance" on a fraudulent act to win a class action. This will mean that the hundreds of thousands of California residents who have been harmed by tobacco companies may seek relief in court."
• LegalNewsline primarily focused its coverage on the Tobacco II Cases, "The California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote Monday, has reinstated a class action lawsuit against tobacco companies accused of misleading advertising."
• Jon Hood, at consumeraffairs.com, discussed the significant implications for consumer class actions, "Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the majority, said that the law was only intended to stop 'shakedown' lawsuits against businesses, and was passed in response to the practice of small business paying lawyers off to make threatened suits go away. Moreno said that the Court of Appeals' view 'would effectively eliminate the class action lawsuit as a vehicle for vindication of (consumer) rights.' Moreno also pointed out that Prop 64's sponsors explicitly provided in ballot arguments that they did not intend to weaken consumer protection laws."
• Metnews.com also focused on the facts of the case itself, but delved further into the rationale of the majority opinion, "Proposition 64, Moreno elaborated, amended the UCL by requiring a showing that the plaintiff has suffered injury 'as a result of' an unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent act or practice. The initiative does not, he said, make 'any reference to altering class action procedures to impose upon all absent class members the standing requirement imposed upon the class representative.'"
• The UCL Practitioner collected blog and news commentary in posts here and here.  I find it particularly amusing that Will Stern, an architect of Proposition 64, seems surprised that the ballot measure promise that the amendment was not intended to weaken consumer protections should come back as a basis for the Supreme Court's Tobacco II Cases Opinion.

Despite all this coverage, one comment that I find particulary significant has received little in the way of analysis:

Moreover, Proposition 64 left intact provisions of the UCL that support the conclusion that the initiative was not intended to have any effect on absent class members. Specifically, Proposition 64 did not amend the remedies provision of section 17203. This is significant because under section 17203, the primary form of relief available under the UCL to protect consumers from unfair business practices is an injunction, along with ancillary relief in the form of such restitution “as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.” (§ 17203.)

(Slip op., at p. 21)  Over the last several years, I have contended in many class certification motions that UCL classes could be certified under the less stringent Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class (recognized by California Courts) because the essence of a UCL claim is injunctive relief, including any Order of restitution.  I contend that this is particularly valid where a minimum amount of restitution can be identified.  Under the policy that unjust enrichment cannot be tolerated under the UCL, an equitable order directing disgorgement in that circumstance is primarily injunctive in nature.  Circumstances have conspired to deprive me of a trial court ruling on the issue.  Perhaps I shall have a further opportunity to pursue this theory in the near future.