Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-california-section-17200/news?facet=&page=7&q=
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:47:01+00:00

Document:
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A patient at an emergency medical care facility on Oct. 9 filed a class action against its owner in a California court, asserting that the owner’s billing practices violate California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Joshua Yebba v. AHMC Healthcare Inc., No. 2018-01024090, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The same day that Google Inc. announced that a data leak had compromised the personally identifiable information (PII) of up to 500,000 users of its Google Plus social network, the technology giant was named in a putative class complaint filed in California federal court Oct. 8, accusing it of unfair competition, invasion of privacy and negligence (Matt Matic, et al. v. Google Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-06164, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Oct. 9 granted a motion to dismiss a consumer’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action against Google North America Inc. in relation to its mobile phone and data services, holding that he failed to plead his claims with the required particularity because he did not allege that he actually relied on misrepresentations made by Google (Gordon Beecher v. Google North America Inc., No. 18-cv-00753, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173805).
LOS ANGELES — Johnson & Johnson falsely and unfairly advertised its baby powder and Shower to Shower products as symbols of freshness, cleanliness and purity — and above all safe for everyday use — despite evidence of a talc-ovarian cancer link that began mounting in 1971, a woman claims in a California unfair competition law (UCL) action filed Oct. 8 (Evelyn Hampton v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 18-08618, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A consumer who alleges that a defective blender exploded, causing her serious injuries, on Oct. 5 sued the maker of the blender and others in a federal court, asserting claims for negligence, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims (Naccole Guinn v. NutriBullet, LLC, et al., No. 2:18cv8613, C.D. Calif.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Oct. 5 granted a motion filed by lenders to dismiss claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other California law claims, holding that the third case filed by the same borrowers in relation to their mortgage was barred by res judicata (Rajesh Varma, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al., No. 18-1038, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172779).
PASADENA, Calif. — After holding that a consumer sufficiently alleged that she relied on misrepresentations about trans-fat content on a label in making the decision to purchase the product and other holdings, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 4 reversed a ruling dismissing her claims against a grocery store company for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other California law claims (Shavonda Hawkins v. The Kroger Co., No. 16-55532, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28116).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Sept. 26 partially granted a motion filed by lenders to dismiss claims for negligence, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action but allowed a borrower’s claim for violation of California’s Homeowner’s Bill Of Rights (HBOR) to proceed, holding that she submitted sufficient evidence to possibly show that the defendants failed to meet their statutory obligations under the HBOR when they did not exercise due diligence in contacting her about her default (Chanell S. Watkins v. Ditech Financial LLC, et al., No. 2:17-cv-02247, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165718).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Oct. 2 refused to dismiss claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other state law claims asserted by an employee of a paper company, but held that she failed to plead claims related to the care and cost of her uniform with the required particularity (Elisa Arroyo v. International Paper Co., No. 17-cv-06211, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170385).
LOS ANGELES — A customer on Sept. 28 sued McDonald’s USA LLC in a California state court, asserting that it misrepresented the price and nature of its value meals in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other state laws (Paul Bledsoe v. McDonalds USA LLC, No. BC720960, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Oct. 1 dismissed in part a consumer class complaint alleging that Apple Inc. intentionally slowed the performance of certain iPhone and iPad models in connection with an operating system update, finding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege some of their computer fraud, consumer fraud and unfair competition claims (In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169606).
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals court on Oct. 1 affirmed a trial court’s award of damages related to a partnership for the formation of a trucking company, holding that the party responsible for the business’s accounting failed to submit any evidence on how the ruling granting judgment on claims for breach of contract, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action asserted against him was not supported (Ararat Yousefi v. Aris Nazarian, No. B271655, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6711).
LOS ANGELES — In a Sept. 25 suit alleging violation of the California unfair competition (UCL) and false advertising law (FAL), a woman suffering from ovarian cancer claims consumer talc company Johnson & Johnson continued selling the product despite decades of evidence detailing its risks and the existence of viable alternatives (Robin Huey v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 18-2056, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Ticketmaster LLC and Live Nation Entertainment Inc. (collectively, Ticketmaster) have failed to eliminate the scalping of tickets because they have actually helped the sale of tickets to the secondary market in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and common law of unjust enrichment, a California man alleges in his Sept. 28 class complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Allen Lee, et al. v. Ticketmaster L.L.C., et al., No. 18-5987, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The same day that Facebook Inc. announced a data breach affecting almost 50 million of its users’ accounts, two of the social network’s account holders on Sept. 28 filed a putative class action against it for unfair competition, negligence and deceit in California federal court (Carl Echavarria, et al. v. Facebook Inc., No. 3:18-cv-05982, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California appeals court on Sept. 21 reversed a ruling dismissing an investor’s claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) against her former attorney, holding that the trial court erred in finding that a UCL claim could not be based on a violation of the rules of professional conduct (Barbara Epis v. Scott C. Jolley, et al., No. A143387, Calif. App., 1st Dist., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6469).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insureds’ claims for breach of contract, bad faith, misrepresentation and fraud against an auto insurer accused of undervaluing vehicles that were rendered a total loss will move forward against the insurer because the insured offered sufficient facts to support the claims, a California federal judge said Sept. 19 (Bobby Jones, et al. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-6941, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160313).
LOS ANGELES — Saying that Johnson & Johnson demands too much at this stage, a federal judge on Sept. 18 denied a motion to dismiss California unfair competition law (UCL) claims alleging that the cosmetic talc maker failed to warn about the presence of asbestos in baby powder (Hermelinda Luna, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 18-4830, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Sept. 18 refused to dismiss an affirmative defense asserted by a natural gas company that consumers failed to give it adequate notice under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), but dismissed the remainder of its affirmative defenses to a complaint in which the customers assert claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), breach of contract and other causes of action related to its procurement of natural gas (Emily Fishman, et al. v. Tiger Natural Gas Inc., et al., No. 17-05351, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159425).

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