Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-california-section-17200/news?facet=&page=9&q=
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:15:41+00:00

Document:
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Aug. 17 partially granted a motion to dismiss claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and advertising laws asserted by consumers who allege that they relied on a product maker’s representations about the ingredients and benefits of its breakfast bars with leave to amend, holding that some of the claims were preempted and that they failed to adequately allege warranty claims (Patrick McMorrow, et al. v. Mondelez International Inc., No. 17-cv-02327, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140078).
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court on Aug. 13 held that high interest rates on consumer loans issued by CashCall Inc. violated California finance law and that the borrowers stated a claim under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) based on their allegation that an interest rate on the loan of at least $2,500 was unconscionable (Eduardo De La Torre, et al. v. CashCall Inc., No. S241434, Calif. Sup., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 5749).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A former employee of Experian Information Solutions Inc. on Aug. 3 sued the company in a California court, asserting claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) in relation to the termination of his employment (Peter Bolin v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., et al., No. 2018-01010103, Calif. Super., Orange. Co.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Aug. 8 refused to remand a former employee’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and wage-related causes of action to a state court, holding that the federal amount-in-controversy requirement of $5 million was met (Ricardo Vergel De Dios v. Gerard Roof Products, LLC, et al., No. 18-01163, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134689).
MINNEAPOLIS — A California federal judge on Aug. 7 denied the majority of a motion filed by an electronics company and retailer to dismiss claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), Minnesota and New Jersey laws and other claims, holding that a consumer sufficiently alleged facts to show that he suffered an injury by unknowingly purchasing a television that was of lesser quality than what was advertised (Ivan Villa Lara v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 17-5222, D. Minn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132583).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Aug. 6 dismissed a borrower’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (HBOR) and other claims with leave to amend, finding that he failed to plead facts showing that a loan servicer and trust did not have the authority to foreclose on the property (Keyhan Mohanna v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-02563, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132053).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A former nonexempt employee on Aug. 2 sued a technology services company in a California court, asserting claims for violation of the California labor code and California’s unfair competition law (UCL), seeking unpaid wages (Maria G. Villasenor v. Solugenix Corp., No. 2018-01009771, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After finding that a restaurant owner is not asserting a federal trademark infringement claim, a California federal judge on Aug. 2 remanded its claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and common-law trademark infringement to state court (Early Morning Inc. v. Eliud Moreno, et al., No. 2:18-cv-00483, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130116).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — After holding that company directors and officers were sued as agents of a company that entered an arbitration agreement in relation to the formation of another entity, a California appeals court on July 31 reversed a lower court’s decision that a former owner of the company’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action were not subject to arbitration (Kyle Fjelstad v. Eric Collins, et al., No. G054836, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5255).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Aug. 1 entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement agreement of class action claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (DUTPA) in relation to alleged misrepresentations about sleep-tracking devices, pursuant to which Fitbit Inc. will pay class members a cash payment and provide them with a nonexpiring voucher (James Brickman, et al. v. Fitbit Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02077, N.D. Calif.).
FRESNO, Calif. — A used-vehicle seller and its affiliates, including an illegal shell reinsurance company, are accused by a California man in a July 17 complaint in a state court of being behind three fraudulent schemes in the sale of used vehicles and violating California’ unfair competition law (UCL) (Gustavo Diaz-Samaniego v. Paul Blanco’s Good Car Company Fresno Inc., et al., No. 18CECG02632, Calif. Super., Fresno Co.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appeals court on July 27 affirmed a ruling in favor of a homeowners association (HOA), which asserts claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, holding that arbitration provisions in a builder’s warranty never became a binding agreement because the warranty was never issued to the HOA (Talega Village Center Community Association v. Professional Warranty Service Corporation, No. G054341, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5132).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on July 23 refused to grant a borrower’s application for a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure of his property, holding that his claims related to the assignment of his loan lacked merit (John B. Freitas v. Clear Recon Corporation, et al., No. 18-03993, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122943).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 23 reversed a district court’s dismissal of a customer’s claims that a retailer and its tenant misled her into believing that its optometrists were “independent,” holding that the court erred in dismissing her claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) without leave to amend (Mojdeh Omidi, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., No. 17-55539, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20416).
SAN DIEGO — A California court on July 20 affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a health insurance company, holding that a noncontracted provider of medical services failed to show that the insurer violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) or that it misrepresented how much he would be paid for his services (James Ochi v. Anthem Blue Cross, et al., No. D071966, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4915).
SAN DIEGO — Three individuals who worked as role players at a California military base and seek unpaid wages and allege violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) were granted permission to file an amended complaint on July 20 by a California federal judge and filed the new complaint the same day, narrowing their claims to time spent working outside of the base (Ahmad Jawad Abdul Jamil, et al. v. Workforce Resources, LLC, et al., No. 18-27, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121903).
SAN FRANCISCO — After holding that Costco Wholesale Corp. did not have a duty to disclose forced labor on labels for prawns it sells in Costco stores, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 20 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of consumers’ claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other California consumer laws (Monica Sud, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., No. 17-15307, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20258).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on July 18 granted a tax certificate investment company’s motion to compel discovery and ordered that a group of participants in a training program, who assert claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action, respond to discovery requests and pay sanctions for failing to participate in discovery (Kerry Boulton, et al. v. U.S. Tax Lien Association, LLC, et al., No. 2:15-cv-2384, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120193).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A July 11 class complaint filed in California state court accuses numerous Jaguar Land Rover North America dealerships in California of denying purchases to Asian customers in violation of the Unruh Act and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (Paul Chiu, et al. v. Pendragon North America, Inc., et al., No. 2018-01004633, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).

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