Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03026/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03026-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E-FILED on 4/28/05

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUSANNE M. PALMER and SHARON

HAMMER, On Behalf of Themselves and Others

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL R. STASSINOS,

Defendant.

No. C-04-03026 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DISMISSING UCL CLAIMS FOR

RESTITUTION AND DISGORGEMENT

[Re Docket No. 40]

SUSANNE M. PALMER, On Behalf of Herself

and Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAR WEST COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. C-04-03027 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DISMISSING UCL CLAIMS FOR

RESTITUTION AND DISGORGEMENT

[Re Docket No. 39]

SUSANNE M. PALMER, On Behalf of Herself

and Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

I.C. SYSTEM, INC.; and B. BROWN.,

Defendant.

No. C-04-03237 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DISMISSING UCL CLAIMS FOR

RESTITUTION AND DISGORGEMENT

[Re Docket No. 33]

Case 5:04-cv-03026-RMW Document 71 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 Proposition 64 was approved by the voters on November 2, 2004 and became effective

on November 3, 2004. United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 125 Cal. App. 4th

1300, 1303 (2005).

2

Plaintiffsmovedforreconsiderationinrelated cases Palmer v. Stassinos, C-04-3026 RMW;Palmer

v. Far West Collection Services, Inc., C-04-3027 RMW; and Palmer v. I.C. System, Inc., C-04-3237

RMW, of the court's December 14, 2004 order dismissing plaintiffs' representative claim for restitution and

disgorgement ofprofits underCalifornia's Unfair CompetitionLaw ("UCL"),Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

The Ninth Circuit has espoused three grounds uponwhicha motionfor reconsideration may be based: (1) an

intervening change incontrolling law;(2) the availabilityofnew evidence; or, (3) the need to correct clear error

or prevent manifest injustice. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th

Cir. 1989). 

There has been an intervening change in controlling law, however, that change inlawdoes not change

the outcome of the court's analysis with regard to plaintiffs' lack of Article III standing. The passage of

Proposition 64,1"amended the UCL by limiting standing to the Attorney General, certain local public

prosecutors, and any person who 'has suffered injuryinfact and has lost money or property'", Frey v. Trans

Union Corp., 127 Cal. App. 4th 986, 994 (2005) (citing § 17204), thereby eliminating "private attorney

general" standing under the UCL. Because, as set forth in the court's order dismissing the disputed claims,

neither plaintiffpaid anyofthe requested fees, plaintiffs necessarily relied uponprivate attorneygeneralstanding

to assert their representative claim forrestitutionand disgorgement ofprofits. It is clear this amendment to the

UCLappliesto pending cases. Id. at 998; Benson v. Kwikset Corp., 126 Cal. App. 4th887, 897-98 (2005)

(amendmentsto theUCLenactedbyapprovalofProposition64 applied to pending actiononappeal); Lytwyn

v. Fry's Electronics, Inc., 126 Cal. App. 4th 1455, 1479-80 (2005) (same); Bivens v. Corel Corp., 126

Cal. App. 4th 1392, 1404 (2005). Having suffered no injury in fact that would entitle them to restitution or

disgorgement under the UCL, plaintiffs cannot by law obtain the relief they seek and thus have no standing.

As set forth above, it is even clearer that plaintiffs do not have standing to seek restitution or

disgorgement under the UCL. Further, plaintiffs do not contend there is additional evidence and the 

Case 5:04-cv-03026-RMW Document 71 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

court does not find reconsideration is required to "correct clear error" or "prevent manifest injustice." Thus,

plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DATED: 4/27/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03026-RMW Document 71 Filed 04/28/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com

Paul Arons lopa@rockisland.com

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Andrew Steinheimer asteinheimer@mpbf.com

Mark Ellis mellis@mpbf.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for

e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/28/05 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03026-RMW Document 71 Filed 04/28/05 Page 4 of 4