Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-california-section-17200/news?facet=&page=6&q=
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:32:14+00:00

Document:
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Nov. 6 refused to enter a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit in which a vehicle accessory equipment seller asserts that a competitor violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and the Lanham Act by falsely representing that its products are made in the United States, holding that it failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction (Vault Cargo Management LLC v. Rhino U.S.A. Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01517, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189959).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Nov. 5 dismissed a borrower’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), fraud, wrongful foreclosure and other claims related to a property foreclosure, holding that her allegations were conclusory (Shirley Brown v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 18-3418, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189232).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A tenant at a storage unit facility that caught on fire sued the owner of the property and business in a California court on Oct. 16, asserting that it violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law by failing to take appropriate safety measures and by making tenants sign an unconscionable contract (Michelle Meredith v. Public Storage Inc., No. 2018-01026239, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A borrower on Oct. 31 sued a loan servicer and others in a California court, asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims, asserting that they improperly handled her loan modification (Eusebia Santiago v. Cooper, et al., No. 2018-00243508, Calif. Super., Sacramento Co.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — After granting an assisted living facility’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration of an estate’s claims for financial elder abuse and violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), a California federal judge on Oct. 31 also held that the case should be transferred to another California federal court based on the convenience of the parties (Audrey Heredia, et al. v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC, No. 18-cv-00616, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186749).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Nov. 2 granted final approval of a more than $5.4 million settlement to be paid by Tesla Inc. to end class claims by owners of Tesla vehicles with “Enhanced Autopilot” that the owners alleged was falsely billed as “safer” for drivers (Dean Sheikh, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., No. 17-2193, N.D. Calif.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After finding that borrowers failed to show that a bank violated California’s Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR), a California federal judge on Oct. 31 dismissed the claims and causes of action for declaratory relief and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), as predicated on the HBOR cause of action (Bruno J. Bicocca v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-cv-01158, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186722).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Oct. 26 held that a company was entitled to statutory and conversion damages for the unlawful broadcast of a program it held the exclusive distribution rights to, but did not rule on its motion for default judgment on claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims until it submits information on attorney fees (G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Anna Lee Patricia Sanchez, et al., No. 18-cv-00382, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184206).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — While contract disputes are generally controlled by state law, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) controls questions about class arbitrability when it comes to interpreting an employment contract between an employer and employee after the employee filed a class complaint alleging, in part, negligence and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) after employee data was stolen, the attorney representing the employer told the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 29 (Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Frank Varela, No. 17-988, U.S. Sup.).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 26 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of claims for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims, holding that borrowers failed to show that lenders engaged in business acts that were unlawful, unfair or fraudulent or that they submitted evidence to show that the lenders did not sufficiently respond to their qualified written requests (Jim Ross Meskimen, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al., No. 18-55394, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30320).
SANTA FE, N.M. — The New Mexico Court of Appeals on Oct. 24 ruled that a federal court’s dismissal of a Plavix qui tam action does not preclude the New Mexico attorney general from bringing his own qui tam lawsuit under state statutes (State of New Mexico, ex rel. Hector Balderas, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al., No. A-1-CA-36906, N.M. App., 2018 N.M. App. LEXIS 67).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Oct. 23 dismissed numerous warranty claims asserted by purchasers of laptops made for gaming, but held that the consumers sufficiently pleaded violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims because they specified the model of allegedly defective laptops and the alleged misrepresentations made about them (Casey Thornton, et al. v. Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-cv-03231, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181912).
LOS ANGELES — After holding that internet services companies properly removed a proposed class action from a state court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), a California federal judge on Oct. 19 refused to remand her claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims related to alleged misrepresentations about internet speed (Carla Jimenez v. Charter Communications Inc., et al., No. 18-6480, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180160).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A borrower on Oct. 4 sued a loan servicer in a California court, asserting that it violated the California Homeowners Bill of Rights Act (HBOR) and unfair competition law (UCL) when it initiated the foreclosure process while his loan modification application was under review (Dennis Gonzales v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 2018-01022512, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Oct. 16 granted a consumer’s request for class certification of a case, in which a consumer alleges that a restaurant violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other California laws by adding a surcharge to its bills, holding that a class action was the superior method for adjudicating the dispute (Kathleen Holt v. Noble House Hotels & Resorts Ltd., No. 17-cv-2246, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145566).
SAN FRANCISCO — Logitech Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 9 requesting that it be allowed to settle a false advertising class lawsuit with consumers (In re Logitech Inc. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, No. 18-72732, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A purchaser who alleges that he relied on false statements about heart-health when purchasing a supplement on Oct. 12 waived his right to respond to a vitamin maker’s petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of an appeals court ruling that reversed denial of class certification of the purchaser’s claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Pharmavite LLC v. Noah Bradach, No. 18-449, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3694).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 15 denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by companies who sought review of a California high court’s decision that a district attorney’s state law claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) in relation to an explosion that killed two people were not preempted by federal occupational safety and health law (Emerson Electric Co., et al. v. Superior Court of California, Orange County, et al., No. 17-1713, U.S. Sup.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.