In Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., Court of Appeal reviews judgment in class action, clarifies "causation" in UCL "omission" cases

The opinion in Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co. (July 15, 2010) is hot off the presses and over 50 pages long.  Plaintiff Nelson sued Pearson Ford, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.), California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.)  The trial court certified the matter as a class action, with two classes: the backdating class and the insurance class. After a bench trial, the trial court found Pearson Ford not liable under the ASFA to the backdating class, but liable under the ASFA to the insurance class. It also found Pearson Ford liable to both classes under the UCL, but not the CLRA. The trial court issued certain remedies under the ASFA and the UCL, and awarded Nelson his attorney fees and costs under the ASFA. Both parties appealed.

With a 50-page-plus opinion, there is a lot to digest, but the comments regarding UCL "causation" are so valuable in and of themselves that I wanted to post them in full immediately:

A. Liability

The UCL defines "unlawful competition" to include an "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising . . . ." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) "By proscribing 'any unlawful' business practice, '[Business & Professions Code,] section 17200 "borrows" violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices' that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable." (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (Cel-Tech).) After the 2004 amendment of the UCL by Proposition 64, a private person has standing to sue only if he or she "'has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of [such] unfair competition.'" (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 305 (Tobacco II), citing Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204, italics added.) In the context of a class action, only the class representatives must meet Proposition 64's standing requirements of actual injury and causation. (Tobacco II, supra, at pp. 315-316.)

The actual payment of money by a plaintiff, as wrongfully required by a defendant, "constitute[s] an 'injury in fact' for purposes of Business and Professions Code section 17204. [Citations.]" (Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1347 (Troyk).) Causation for UCL standing purposes is satisfied if "a causal connection [exists] between the harm suffered and the unlawful business activity." (Daro v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1099 (Daro); accord, Troyk, supra, at p. 1349.) However, "[t]hat causal connection is broken when a complaining party would suffer the same harm whether or not a defendant complied with the law." (Daro, supra, at p. 1099.)

For example, in Troyk, an insured filed a class action against his automobile insurer alleging the insurer violated the UCL by requiring him to pay a service charge for payment of his automobile insurance policy premium and, because the service charge was not stated in his policy, the insurer violated Insurance Code section 381, subdivision (f), requiring that this be done. (Troyk, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314.) Although the Troyk court found that the insurer had violated the Insurance Code as alleged (id., at p. 1334), it concluded that causation under the UCL did not exist because plaintiff did not show that had the insurer disclosed the monthly service charges in the policy documents as required by the Insurance Code, he would not have paid them. (Id. at p. 1350.) Significantly, the lack of disclosure of proper charges, not illegal charges, violated the UCL in Troyk.

Here, the trial court impliedly found that Pearson Ford had violated the UCL as to both classes through its violations of the ASFA, and we have affirmed that Pearson Ford is liable for its violations of the ASFA. (Ante, part II.A.2.) Pearson Ford does not challenge the conclusion that its violations of the ASFA support Nelson's UCL claims; rather its appeal is limited to the trial court's finding that Nelson had standing to pursue claims under the UCL. Pearson Ford focuses its argument on whether Nelson suffered injury "as a result of" its unfair competition under the UCL. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) Relying on Troyk, Pearson Ford contends that Nelson needed to prove he would not have bought the car if he had known that the second contract: (1) charged him pre-consummation interest; (2) misstated the APR; and (3) failed to separately itemize the $250 insurance premium. We disagree.

The failure of Pearson Ford to comply with the ASFA caused Nelson to suffer an injury and lose money as to both classes because he paid pre-consummation interest (the backdating class), and paid sales tax and financing charges on the insurance premium (the insurance class). Unlike Troyk, these illegal charges violated the UCL and Pearson Ford improperly collected additional funds from Nelson. UCL causation exists because Nelson would not have paid pre-consummation interest, or sales tax and financing charges on the insurance premium had Pearson Ford complied with the ASFA. Because Nelson had standing to pursue claims under the UCL, we reject Pearson Ford's argument that the judgment in favor of both classes should be vacated to the extent it grants relief under the UCL.

Slip op., at 32-34.  This discussion adds some clarity to the situation where an unlawful act underlies the imposition of a charge or fee.  The plaintiff need not plead that the product or service wouldn't have been purchased had the truth been disclosed.  Instead, it is enough to plead that money was spent on the product or service and that the amount charged included some unlawful component that would not have been charged had the law been followed.  This won't resolve all cases alleging fraud or omissions, but it does offer some blunt guidance about so-called "causation" under the UCL.

I don't know if I will get around to posting more about Nelson, but you can follow the link above to peruse it yourself if automobile financing just gets you crazy with anticipation.

California rejects pass-on defense for antitrust conspirators

In Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Mach., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) (Hanover Shoe), the United States Supreme Court held that antitrust violators generally could not assert as a defense that any illegal overcharges had been passed on by a suing direct purchaser to indirect purchasers.  In Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (Illinois Brick), the United States Supreme Court concluded that only direct purchasers, not indirect purchasers, could sue for price fixing.  In 1978, in direct response to Illinois Brick, the California Legislature amended the state's Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.) to provide that, contrary to federal law, indirect purchasers as well as direct purchasers could sue under California law (§ 16750, subd. (a)).  However, until July 12, 2010, California had not considered the other question: whether a pass-on defense was available.

In Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (July 12, 2010), the California Supreme Court considered that unresolved question, holding that "under the Cartwright Act, as under federal law, generally no pass-on defense is permitted."  Slip op., at 2.  The Supreme Court also examined whether, under the UCL, the pharmacies alleging price fixing could state a claim.  The trial court and Court of Appeal concluded that the pharmacies lacked standing and were ineligible for relief.  The Supreme Court reversed:

While Manufacturers argue that ultimately Pharmacies suffered no compensable loss because they were able to mitigate fully any injury by passing on the overcharges, this argument conflates the issue of standing with the issue of the remedies to which a party may be entitled. That a party may ultimately be unable to prove a right to damages (or, here, restitution) does not demonstrate that it lacks standing to argue for its entitlement to them. (See Southern Pac. Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Co., supra, 245 U.S. at p. 534 [“The plaintiffs suffered losses . . . when they [over]paid. Their claim accrued at once in the theory of the law and it does not inquire into later events.”]; Adams v. Mills, supra, 286 U.S. at p. 407 [“In contemplation of law the claim for damages arose at the time the extra charge was paid,” notwithstanding any subsequent reimbursement].) The doctrine of mitigation, where it applies, is a limitation on liability for damages, not a basis for extinguishing standing.

Slip op., at 39.  Turning to the separate issue of remedies, the Supreme Court said:

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment on a second, overlapping ground: Pharmacies were not entitled to any remedy. Pharmacies' complaint seeks two forms of relief: restitution and an injunction. We need consider only the latter. If a party has standing under section 17204 (as Pharmacies do here), it may seek injunctive relief under section 17203. (See § 17204 [authorizing without limitation “[a]ctions for relief pursuant to this chapter” to be brought by parties who satisfy the provision‟s standing requirement].) Manufacturers‟ papers identify no obstacle that would preclude Pharmacies from obtaining injunctive relief if they establish Manufacturers were engaged in an unfair business practice.

Slip op., at 40.  "Section 17203 makes injunctive relief 'the primary form of relief available under the UCL,' while restitution is merely 'ancillary.' (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 319.)"  Slip op., at 41.

While the discussion about the pass-on defense issue is much longer, it leads inevitably to the unanimous conclusion that California would apply the federal approach of denying a pass-on defense.  Thus, unless you practice in that specific area, the discussion would not be interesting, despite the thoroughness.  There are also some brief comments about the respective burdens on summary judgment.  The decision is worth scanning for just the UCL and summary judgment remarks.

Video available from Federalist Society program on Business & Professions Code section 17200

On May 19, 2010, I participated in a panel discussion presented by the Federalist Society.  The theme of the panel discussion was "California's 17200 -- Its Use and Abuse."  The panelists were:

• Jeremy B. Rosen, partner, Horvitz & Levy
• William L. Stern, partner, Morrison Foerster
• Shaun Martin, Shaun Martin, Professor, University of San Diego School of Law, and,
• me

The Hon Michael Orfield (Ret.), served as the panel moderator.

Video of the panel discussion is now available on youtube here.

It was an entertaining discussion.  There was some irony in the fact that the defense-oriented panelists argued for more government enforcement and the plaintiff-oriented panelists argued for less government enforcement and more private-sector regulatory enforcement.  Fun times.

Will the Ninth Circuit affirm nationwide certification of state law claims?

In the matter of Mazza, et al v. American Honda Motor Company, the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument on June 9, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in Pasadena, California.  Defendant's Rule 23 Petition was granted after the District Court certified UCL and CLRA claims on a nationwide basis.  The District Court's extensive discussion of choice-of-law analysis may be the primary focus.  The outcome may prove to be significant for the many Toyota acceleration cases assigned to Judge Selna in the same Central District from which Mazza was issued.  I would like to attend and provide a detailed account of the argument, but my schedule may not permit it.  If I cannot attend, I will try to arrange for someone to report in my absence.

Companion opinions involving billing practices by Sharp Healthcare (Durell and Hale) examine UCL standing

Sharp Healthcare is responsible for two of the three published decisions issued today that concern class action issues.  Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (April 19, 2010) and Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (April 19, 2010) both concern putative class actions.  Both involve billing practices by Sharp Healthcare related to its "regular" billing rate.  Both concern trial court orders sustaining demurrers to UCL causes of action.  And both pronounce new situations where "reliance" is required for UCL claims.  However, the outcomes in the two appeals differ by the width of, at most, a couple of sentences of allegations; one passes muster as a "reliance" allegations and one does not.

Both cases concern the basic theory that Sharp engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by billing uninsured patients its full standardized rates for services, when it substantially discounts those rates for patients covered by Medicare or private insurance.  Both cases questioned, in slightly different ways, what actually constitutes the "regular rates" charged to patients.

In the Durell opinion, the Court focused on the causation aspect of standing:

The court sustained the demurrer to the UCL cause of action without leave to amend on the ground Durell lacks standing to pursue the claim. The court found the SAC insufficiently alleges "injury in fact" and causation. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) As to causation, the court explained the SAC fails to allege Durell was harmed "as a result of" Sharp's conduct. (Ibid.) For instance, the SAC does not allege he "relied on Sharp charging its 'usual and customary rates' in receiving treatment." We turn first to the causation issue, which we find dispositive.

Durell, at 12.  The Court found the absence of allegations of "reliance" to be the key defect in Durell's pleading: 

The SAC does not allege Durell relied on either Sharp's Web site representations or on the language in the Agreement for Services in going to Sharp Grossmont Hospital or in seeking or accepting services once he was transported there. Indeed, the SAC does not allege Durell ever visited Sharp's Web site or even that he ever read the Agreement for Services.

Durell, at 14.

Plaintiff Hale, on the other hand, alleged facts that satisfied the Court's examination of "injury in fact" and standing: 

Even though the SAC alleges Hale has paid only $500 of her $14,447.65 medical bill, it also alleges the Admission Agreement obligates her to pay Sharp the balance on her account. Thus, she faces at least an imminent invasion or injury to a legally protected interest. (See Troyk, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1346.) The term "imminent" is defined as "ready to take place," "hanging threateningly over one's head," and "menacingly near." (Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict. (1993) p. 1130.) Certainly, this is not the type of action Proposition 64 was intended to squelch. Hale was a bona fide consumer of medical services.

Hale, at 11.  Though thin, the Court agreed that Hale did plead a form of "reliance" sufficient to withstand demurrer: 

We agree with Hale, however, that "to the extent [she] is bringing a fraud-based claim under the UCL, she has reasonably pled reliance." The SAC alleges Hale signed the Admission Agreement, and "at the time of signing the contract, she was expecting to be charged 'regular rates,' and certainly not the grossly excessive rates that she was subsequently billed." (Italics added.) This allegation appears in the breach of contract cause of action, but the UCL cause of action incorporates the allegations of all other causes of action. We must interpret the complaint reasonably, "reading it as a whole and its parts in their context." (Stearn v. County of San Bernardino (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 434, 439.) As Hale notes, the "difference between 'expecting' to be charged regular rates and 'relying' on being charged regular rates is a distinction without a difference." We see no utility in requiring Hale to amend her complaint to exchange the term "expecting" for the term "relying."

Hale, at 14-15.  Lesson one from these cases is that small differences in pleading facts can make a big difference.

But discussing allegations was not the headline-worthy event in these two opinions.  The Court extended the concept of "reliance" discussed in Tobacco II's discussion of the UCL "fraudulent" prong to any "unlawful" prong claim asserting a legal violation that involves deception:

Construing the phrase "as a result of" in Business and Professions Code section 17204 in light of Proposition 64's intention to limit private enforcement actions under the UCL, we conclude the reasoning of Tobacco II applies equally to the "unlawful" prong of the UCL when, as here, the predicate unlawfulness is misrepresentation and deception. A consumer's burden of pleading causation in a UCL action should hinge on the nature of the alleged wrongdoing rather than the specific prong of the UCL the consumer invokes. This is a case in which the "concept of reliance" unequivocally applies (Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 325, fn. 17), and omitting an actual reliance requirement when the defendant's alleged misrepresentation has not deceived the plaintiff "would blunt Proposition 64's intended reforms." (Cattie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (S.D.Cal. 2007) 504 F.Supp.2d 939, 948.)

Durell, at 14.

With a new category of "reliance" pleading required for certain "unlawful" prong claims, the Court turned its high-powered, neutrino-powered conservative ray on the "unfair" prong of the UCL.  Durell's "unfair" prong claim also found no success.  After reviewing the post-Cel-Tech hairball, the Court applied its own prior precedent that defines a very strict test for "unfair" conduct:

Here, the court's order does not specifically address the "unfair" prong of the UCL. The SAC alleges Sharp's conduct violates public policy, and is "immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous," a vague test of unfairness this court rejects. The SAC does not allege the conduct is tethered to any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision, or that it threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of an antitrust law. In his briefing, Durell does not address Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th 163, and its affect on the definition of "unfair" in consumer UCL cases, or this court's opinions in Scripps Clinic, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 917, and Byars, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th 1134. We conclude the court properly granted the demurrer as to the claim under the "unfair" prong of the UCL.

Durell, at 19.

On the flip side, Hale's CLRA claim lives to fight another day, benefiting from the Court's "reliance" pleading analysis set forth in its discussion of Hale's UCL claim:

Again, however, to the extent Hale's CLRA claim is fraud-based, the SAC adequately alleges the reliance element. Thus, the court erred by sustaining the demurrer to the CLRA cause of action.

Hale, at 16.

I will look forward to reading The UCL Practitioner's assessment of these two opinions.

Geico's attempt to "pick off" class representative in UCL action is unsuccessful

Oh, the riches that come to those who wait.  After a fairly dry spell, California's Courts of Appeal bestow no fewer than three opinions about issues related to class actions and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  The first up for commentary is Wallace v. Geico General Insurance Company (April 19, 2010).  In Wallace, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) considered whether GEICO's offer of monetary compensation to Wallace after she filed her lawsuit caused her to lose standing as the representative plaintiff.  Concluding that she did not, the Court reversed the trial court's order striking class allegations.

Wallace filed a proposed class action complaint against GEICO. According to Wallace, her vehicle was damaged in an accident and required body work. She obtained an estimate from a repair shop of her choice and presented the estimate to GEICO. GEICO told her that it would not pay the full amount of the estimate because the hourly rate for labor charged by that business was above what GEICO considered to be the prevailing labor rate.

Meanwhile, following a consent order issued by the California Department of Insurance, GEICO was obligated to calculate reimbursements in an alternative fashion.  Two months after Wallace filed her lawsuit, GEICO sent a check for $387.56 to Wallace to cover the amount that Wallace paid out of pocket for the repair of her vehicle.  Based on the fact of that payment, the trial court ruled that Wallace lacked standing but gave Wallace time to locate an adequate class representative and allowed discovery for that purpose.  Less than two months later, GEICO moved to strike class allegations.  The trial court granted the motion on the ground that the class had no representative.

The Court of Appeal began its review by examining the "pick off" cases:

In the specific situation where a defendant in a class action has forced an involuntary settlement on the representative plaintiff after the lawsuit is filed, case law creates an exception to the requirement that a representative plaintiff continue to be a member of the proposed class. These cases, which are "sometimes referred to as 'pick off ' cases" (Watkins v. Wachovia Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1590), "arise when, prior to class certification, a defendant in a proposed class action gives the named plaintiff the entirety of the relief claimed by that individual. The defendant then attempts to obtain dismissal of the action, on the basis that the named plaintiff can no longer pursue a class action, as the named plaintiff is no longer a member of the class the plaintiff sought to represent. . . . [T]he defendant seeks to avoid exposure to the class action by 'picking off ' the named plaintiff, sometimes by picking off named plaintiffs serially." (Ibid., citing, among others, La Sala, supra, 5 Cal.3d 864.) In this situation, "the involuntary receipt of relief does not, of itself, prevent the class plaintiff from continuing as a class representative." (Watkins, at p. 1590; see also Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1299 [case law "prevents a prospective defendant from avoiding a class action by 'picking off' prospective class-action plaintiffs one by one, settling each individual claim in an attempt to disqualify the named plaintiff as a class representative"]; Ticconi v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 528, 548 [" '[A] prospective defendant is not allowed to avert a class action by "picking off " prospective plaintiffs one-by-one. Thus, precertification payment of the named plaintiff 's claim does not automatically disqualify the named plaintiff as a class action representative.' "].) 

Slip op., at 11-12.  Having explained that the "pick off" attempt was improper, the Court then explained what the trial court should have done in that situation:

Instead of a reflexive dismissal of the representative plaintiff on the basis that he or she lacks standing as the trial court did here — the proper procedure in a pick off situation is for the trial court to consider whether "the named plaintiffs will continue fairly to represent the class" in light of the individual relief offered by the defendant. (La Sala, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 872.) As a practical matter, in most cases, that evaluation may be performed in the context of a ruling on a motion for class certification, where the trial court inquires into the existence of, among other things, "(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class." (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326, italics added; see also Weiss, supra, 385 F.3d at p. 348 [allowing class certification motion to be filed after defendant attempted to pick off the representative plaintiff].)

Slip op., at 13.  Next, the Court explicitly held that the "pick off" cases apply to UCL actions, even after Proposition 64:

We agree with the parties that the pick off cases are persuasive here, regardless of the injury-in-fact requirement set forth in section 17204. As required by section 17204, Wallace "suffered injury in fact" and "lost money or property" as a result of the practices at issue in this lawsuit. (§ 17204.) Specifically, Wallace was injured by paying for the repair work to her vehicle that GEICO did not agree to cover. Thus, at the time Wallace filed suit she was a proper plaintiff under section 17204. We see no indication in the history of Proposition 64, as reviewed by our Supreme Court in Californians for Disability Rights, supra, 39 Cal.4th 223, 228, that the voters amended section 17204 with the intent of allowing defendants in class actions brought under section 17200 et seq. to defeat class status by forcing an involuntary settlement.

Slip op., at 15-16.  The Court went on to explain that Proposition 64 focused on "the filing of lawsuits by attorneys who did not have clients impacted by the defendant's conduct."  Slip op., at 16.  Thus, "[b]ecause the doctrine expressed in the pick off cases is an established part of class action procedure, there is no reason to believe that Proposition 64 was intended to alter that doctrine in the context of suits brought under section 17200 et seq."  Slip op., at 17, relying on In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 318.

I still can't get over the fact that an insurance company wouldn't pay for the full cost of vehicle repair.  Inconceivable.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of April 12, 2010

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

• A Petition for Review and Request for Depublication were both denied in Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc. (January 7, 2010), (reversed trial court order decertifying class after applying Tobacco II) - discussed on this blog here.  It appears from this denial that the California Supreme Court is in no rush to take up Tobacco II issues again.
• A Petition for Review was denied in Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (Dec. 31, 2009) (affirming final approval of class action settlement and attorneys' fees award)
• A Petition for Review was denied in Steroid Hormone Product Cases (January 21, 2010, as mod. Feb. 8, 2010) - discussed on this blog here and here.  This denial is more significant than the denial in Weinstat because of the very strong criticism of Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (2009).

Salenga v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc. addresses issues of accrual of UCL claims

If The UCL Practitioner wasn't on a blogging hiatus, it would be all over this one like attorneys on a mass tort.  In Salenga v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc. (April 9, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) reversed an Order dismissing a First Amended Cross-Complaint, after defendants demurred on the ground that cross-complainant did not file within the four-year limitations period applicable to the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  In the underlying complaint, Cavalry (as an assignee of MMCA) sued a consumer, seeking a deficiency judgment, after the consumer had defaulted on her MMCA auto loan in 2003 and the vehicle was repossessed. She was given a Notice of Intent to Dispose of Motor Vehicle ("NOI" or Notice) dated October 14, 2003, and the vehicle was sold at auction.  About four years later, Cavalry filed its complaint seeking payment of a deficiency balance of $10,288.56, plus interest from May 2004.

After being sued, the consumer brought a cross-complaint, contending that the NOI was defective and could not support a deficiency judgment.  See, Juarez v. Arcadia Financial, Ltd., 152 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2007).  That's when thing get interesting.  Okay, not really, but that's when things happen that are worth reporting.

On appeal, the Court considered whether any form of tolling or accrual-based delay was available to the consumer:

It is well accepted that a limitations period commences when the cause of action "accrues." (Code Civ. Proc., § 312; Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806.) " 'Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues at "the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements." ' " (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1317-1318.) "The cause of action ordinarily accrues when, under the substantive law, the wrongful act is done and the obligation or liability arises, i.e., when an action may be brought." (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, § 493, p. 633.)

Here, the applicable substantive law includes both the Act and the UCL. It is well-established that "[a]n action for unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 'shall be commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued.' (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17208.) The 'discovery rule,' which delays accrual of certain causes of action until the plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of facts giving rise to the claim, does not apply to unfair competition actions. Thus, 'the statute begins to run . . . irrespective of whether plaintiff knew of its accrual, unless plaintiff can successfully invoke the equitable tolling doctrine.' " (Snapp & Associates Ins. Services, Inc. v. Malcolm Bruce Burlingame Robertson (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.)

Slip op., at 9.  The consumer, on appeal, expressly disavowed any reliance on a continuing violation theory of delayed accrual.  The Court also concluded that the consumer was not asserting the concept of equitable tolling or a delayed discovery rule.  Instead, the consumer argued that she was not actually adversely affected by the defective NOI until cross-defendants made efforts to pursue a deficiency judgment on it and until she made a payment at that time.  The Court focused its examination on accrual rules:

The authors of 3 Witkin, California Procedure, supra, Actions, section 496, page 635, summarize the various categories of exceptions that have been made over time to the general rule of "accrual" of a cause of action as of the time of the wrongful act. These include, as potentially relevant here, "(2) Accrual when damage results. [Citation.] [¶] (3) Accrual postponed by condition precedent." The authors further explain that these "rules of delayed accrual are to be distinguished from rules that, despite accrual of the cause of action, toll or suspend the running of the statute." (Ibid.)

Slip op., at 10.

The Court then attempted to reconcile the "principles governing the accrual of causes of action to the pleadings before the court, with regard to the protective policies of the [Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance] Act, including whether there is any reasonable possibility that Appellant can truthfully amend to allege facts establishing the timeliness of this cross-action."  Slip op, at 12.  The Court addressed the purposes of the Act:

Deficiency judgments are subject to certain restrictions under the Act. In Bank of America v. Lallana (1998) 19 Cal.4th 203 (Bank of America), the Supreme Court held that a secured creditor who sells a defaulting debtor's repossessed car may obtain a deficiency judgment, but only by complying with all the provisions of the Act, as well as the relevant provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (Division 9). (Id. at p. 208; § 2983.8.) The court took this approach: " ' "[T]he rule and requirement are simple. If the secured creditor wishes a deficiency judgment he must obey the law. If he does not obey the law, he may not have his deficiency judgment." ' " (Bank of America, supra, 19 Cal.4th 203, 215.)

Slip op., at 13.

The Court then worked to sort out confusion in the parties' briefs regarding elements of causes of action and the concept of standing to assert a justiciable controversy:

There is some confusion in the briefs about the required elements of a cause of action that may be asserted by a borrower, for breach of a substantive right provided to the borrower by the Act (e.g., no deficiency judgment absent a compliant NOI; §§ 2983.2, subd. (a), 2983.8). The parties have discussed, for limitations purposes, the date of incurring actual injury, as that same concept has been developed in the law for determining whether a putative class representative has standing, under the restrictions of the UCL, to assert a particular claim. Normally, "standing" questions will arise in the related context of justiciability determinations (made upon intertwined criteria of ripeness and standing). " 'One who invokes the judicial process does not have "standing" if he, or those whom he properly represents, does not have a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because the actor has neither suffered nor is about to suffer any injury of sufficient magnitude reasonably to assure that all of the relevant facts and issues will be adequately presented.' " (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Actions, § 21, p. 84.)

In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 318, includes extensive discussion of the modern concept of standing in UCL class actions. Under Proposition 64, the UCL's substantive purpose of protecting consumers from unfair businesses practices was not altered, and the focus of the initiative "was to address a specific abuse of the UCL's generous standing provision by eliminating that provision in favor of a more stringent standing requirement." (In re Tobacco II Cases, supra, at p. 324; Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 232.) The court held that a class representative must be capable of demonstrating traditional standing in terms of alleging actual injury and causation, including actual reliance on acts of unlawful or fraudulent competition. However, a broader rule was used for the required standing showing for a potential class member. (In re Tobacco Cases, supra, at pp. 319-322.)

Slip op., at 16-17.  The Court then applied all of its prior discussion of the contours of accrual and standing to the facts before it:

In our case, there should be no difficulty in analyzing UCL standing rules as of the date of all of the events that allegedly occurred, including the 2007-2008 efforts to obtain a deficiency judgment. We disagree with cross-defendants that the only relevant time period for assessing standing and/or accrual of a statutory cause of action is 2003, when the defective NOI was sent. Rather, Appellant should be allowed to make a greater effort to plead that she did not incur actual injury until the 2007-2008 attempts to enforce the allegedly inadequate NOI were made, through the demand letter and judicial procedures to obtain a deficiency judgment. That would not amount to splitting her cause of action, where the NOI procedure serves two separate statutory purposes: permitting reinstatement, and/or allowing a deficiency judgment, if proper notice was given. (See Miller v. Lakeside Village Condo. Assn. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1622-1623.) This is not a case of a plaintiff resting upon her rights. (Davies, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 515.)

Moreover, we think that the Supreme Court's analysis of standing of a class representative, to assert violations of the Act, in Fireside Bank, supra, 40 Cal.4th 1069, 1089-1090, goes beyond technical class certification questions. That plaintiff, Gonzalez, was claiming she was deprived of a fair opportunity to redeem the financed vehicle, "followed by an unlawful demand for payment. The record demonstrates Fireside Bank repossessed Gonzalez's vehicle and pursued a deficiency judgment against her. She thus has standing to seek a declaration that Fireside Bank is unlawfully asserting a debt against her, as well as an injunction against all further collection efforts. The record further shows Gonzalez (or someone on her behalf) made a postrepossession payment against the alleged deficiency; upon proof she made that payment, Gonzalez also has standing to seek restitution." (Id. at p. 1090, italics added.) From that analysis, we think the courts may be receptive to a properly pled allegation that postponed accrual of a statutory cause of action may exist, under circumstances in which a deficiency judgment is sought based upon a defective NOI.

Slip op., at 18-19.  The unintended consequences of using the initiative process to tinker with laws are fascinating to behold.  While the Court didn't declare that the consumer could successfully amend, it certainly gave a pretty clear roadmap about how go about crafting that amendment.  The opinion all but states that the consumer wasn't injured, for UCL purposes, by the defective NOI until an attempt to secure a deficiency judgment based on it was attempted many years later.  This was despite the consumer's failure to exercise the reinstatement right triggered by the NOI.

Class allegations stricken in suit alleging defective control panels in certain Whirlpool and Kenmore machines

United States District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel (Northern District of California) granted, with leave to amend, a motion to strike class allegations in a suit alleging a defect in Whirlpool-manufactured top-loading Kenmore Elite Oasis automatic washing machines (“the Machines”) that Sears marketed, advertised, distributed, warranted, and offered to repair.  Tietsworth v. Sears Roebuck and Co., et al., 2010 WL 1268093 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010).  The alleged defect in an electronic control board causes machines to stop mid-cycle.

The Court concluded that the class was not ascertainable as defined:

[T]he putative classes alleged in paragraph 98 cannot be ascertained because they include members who have not experienced any problems with their Machines' Electronic Control Boards-or for that matter with any other part of the Machine. “Such members have no injury and no standing to sue.” Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc., No. 08-5788 JF (PVT), 2009 WL 5069144, at *6 (N.D.Cal.2009); see also Bishop, 1996 WL 33150020, at *5 (“courts have refused to certify class actions based on similar ‘tendency to fail’ theories because the purported class includes members who have suffered no injury and therefore lack standing to sue.”).

Order, at 19.

The opinion also includes an extensive discussion of pleading standards applicable to many different claims for relief predicated on failure to disclose or concealment allegations.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of March 8, 2010

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

• A Petition for Review was denied in Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (November 19, 2009) (adopting FTC-based formulation for "unfair" under the UCL and declining to import two-way attorney fee provision into UCL via predicate statute).  See, UCL Practitioner here and here for background 
• A Petition for Review and Request for Depublication were denied in Keller v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., Inc. (November 4, 2009; pub. ord. December 4, 2009) (appeal of order denying class certification)