Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-california-section-17200/news?facet=&page=3&q=
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:14:39+00:00

Document:
SAN DIEGO — After finding that a butter maker never represented that its products were made using cows that were 100 percent grass-fed, a California federal judge on Feb. 4 dismissed a consumer’s class action claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), fraud and other causes of action (Dyami Myers-Taylor v. Ornua Foods North America, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01538, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17678).
LOS ANGELES — After finding that a plaintiff named in an underlying lawsuit failed to challenge a renewed motion for judgment and failed to prove that a law firm acted in fraud by seeking the renewed judgment on behalf of the successor of a defunct entity, a California federal judge on Jan. 23 dismissed his claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action (Marius D. Popa v. Winn Law Group, APC, et al., No. 17-6804, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11676).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California appeals panel on Jan. 7 affirmed the dismissal of claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and contract claims asserted by a seller of hydroponic indoor gardening products, holding that it failed to raise any triable issues of material fact in relation to its claims that other entities violated an agreement providing that it was the sole distributor of the products in the United States (Sentinel Global Product Solutions Inc. v. Hydrofarm, Inc., No. A149017, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 1, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 417).
OAKLAND, Calif. — Although certain warranty claims related to an alleged vehicle defect were allowed to proceed, a California federal judge on Jan. 31 held that a consumer failed to plausibly allege facts to support his claims for violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and California’s unfair competition law (UCL), dismissing the claims with leave to amend (Giorgrio Enea v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-02792, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15925).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California appeals court panel on Jan. 29 reversed a trial court’s dismissal of claims for negligence and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), holding that borrowers’ allegations that a bank unreasonably delayed and subjected them to a fraudulent loan modification process are sufficient to support the claims (Flag Billings, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. C084369, Cal. App., 3rd Dist., 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 684).
SAN DIEGO — Although a consumer had standing to assert his claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), a California federal judge on Jan. 30 dismissed the cause of action with leave to amend the pleading to add facts on how a telephone service company allegedly uses personal information to open unauthorized cell phone accounts (Patrick Ames v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01666, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14967).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Jan. 29 dismissed an online stock photo repository’s antitrust claim, holding that Google LLC did not have a monopoly power that it used to discriminate against the repository, but allowed the company’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and breach of contract and the implied good faith and fair dealing to proceed (Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google, LLC, et al., No. 18-01910, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13408).
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel on Jan. 29 affirmed a lower court’s decisions in favor of the purchaser of a property at a trustee’s sale and banks, holding that a borrower failed to submit the required allegations of tender in support of his claim for violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) and his cause of action for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) failed as derivative to that claim (Jorge Rojas v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. E068405, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 2, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 680).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Jan. 25 denied a nursing home’s motions to compel arbitration brought by two plaintiffs, dismiss claims accusing it of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and strike the plaintiffs’ class claims, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were not subject to arbitration provisions and that the claims satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) (Stacia Stiner, et al. v. Brookdale Senior Living Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-03962-HSG, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12552).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Jan. 24 granted preliminary approval of a $750,000 settlement to be paid by New Balance Athletics Inc. to end a class complaint that the shoe maker overcharged consumers and violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other California laws by advertising certain shoes as “made in USA” when a significant portion of the shoes comprised materials and labor from abroad (Sheila Dashnaw, et al. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 17-159, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12659).
SAN MATEO, Calif. — The California attorney general, on behalf of the people of the state, on Jan. 22 sued numerous makers of metal-on-metal hip implants in a California court, alleging that they violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law (FAL) by making misrepresentations about the stability, survivorship and other characteristics of the products (California v. Medical Device Business Services, Inc., et al., No. 19-00422, Calif. Super., San Mateo Co.).
LOS ANGELES — A customer on Jan. 23 sued a retailer in a California federal court, asserting that it discriminated against her and violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) by failing to remedy barriers at its store that interfered with her ability to use the location (Chom Ye Chon v. Walgreen Co., et al., No. 2:19cv501, C.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Jan. 22 dismissed without prejudice a property owner’s claim that companies that worked on a construction project violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when dumping materials from the project on his property, holding that while he sufficiently alleged that the defendants contributed to the disposal of hazardous waste, he did not allege that the waste presented an imminent threat to human health and the environment (Todd Ingalls v. AMG Demolition & Environmental Services, et al., No. 17-cv-2013, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10198).
LOS ANGELES — The lead plaintiff in a class complaint accusing a smartphone-based dating application of discriminatory age-based pricing in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) filed a motion on Jan. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking preliminary approval of a class settlement valued at approximately $25 million (Lisa Kim, et al. v. Tinder, Inc., et al., No. 18-3093, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A consumer on Jan. 14 sued companies that specialize in building custom storage centers in a California federal court, asserting causes of action for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims in relation to an alleged pricing scheme for its products (Annemarie Newbold v. Closets By Design Inc., et al., No. 8:19cv77, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Jan. 14 held that class action claims for violations of California law, including California’s unfair competition law (UCL), were plausibly alleged by purchasers of vitamin supplements but ruled that they could not assert nationwide class action claims under New York law for products not purchased in New York (Darcey L. Sharpe, et al. v. Puritan’s Pride, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-06717, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6526).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After sustaining demurrers as to a university employee’s claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and her due process rights and a breach of contract claim, a California appeals court on Jan. 14 reversed part of the ruling holding that the employer did not given her proper notice of a demotion (June LaMarr v. Regents of The University of California, No. C082569, Calif. App., 3rd Dist., 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 318).
LOS ANGELES — The question of whether an anti-assignment provision precludes an out-of-network provider’s suit including California unfair competition law (UCL) claims or whether the insurer’s conduct waived the defense lays before a California federal judge after a Jan. 14 brief (California Surgical Institute Inc. v. Aetna Life and Casualty [Bermuda] Ltd., et al., No. 18-2157, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Bob’s Red Mill Natural Foods Inc. and three people who sued the company alleging that its steel cut oats contain traces of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, on Jan. 10 filed a notice in a federal court of California indicating that they have reached a settlement agreement. The court has ordered the parties to finalize the agreement by Feb. 25 (Tamara Frankel, et al. v. Bob’s Red Mill Natural Foods Inc., No. 18-5394, N.D. Calif.).

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