Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-california-section-17200/news?facet=&page=4&q=
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:16:21+00:00

Document:
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 10 affirmed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment for a franchisor on a franchisee’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), fraud and other causes of action, finding nothing showing that the gas station franchisor did not negotiate a sale in good faith or that its contract with him was intended to deceive the public (Mark Yi v. Circle K Stores Inc., No. 17-55971, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 924).
FRESNO, Calif. — The purchaser of a property at a trustee’s sale on Jan. 10 sued a title company and beneficiary of the deed in a California state court asserting claims for negligence, violation of the unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action, alleging that they knew or should have known that the property was subject to a bankruptcy automatic stay (Gary Toor vs. Ajit Gill, No. 19CECG00132, Calif. Super., Fresno Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Jan. 10 granted a consumer leave to amend his claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and another cause of action against the makers of an allegedly defective television (Alexis Bronson v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., No. 18-2300, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5028).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Jan. 9 granted a motion to disqualify the counsel of an Uber Technologies Inc. competitor suing the ride-sharing company under the California unfair competition law (UCL) and the California Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UPA) (Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 18-5546, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4274).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — After finding that consumers’ allegations that baby products include unidentified ingredients in sufficient amounts to render them non-hypoallergenic was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, a California federal judge on Jan. 7 refused to dismiss certain California law claims but held that other allegations related to the products failed (Austin Rugg, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 17-cv-05010, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2755).
SAN FRANCISCO — Although a question of fact exists as to whether a consumer would notice an asterisk highlighting a disclaimer about biotin deficiency, a California federal judge on Jan. 4 held that consumers failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements to support their claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), dismissing the complaint against the product maker with leave to amend (Eugene Anthony, et al. v. Pharmavite, No. 18-cv-02636, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1899).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal magistrate judge on Jan. 4 dismissed a courier’s discrimination-related claims against his employer, holding that all of the causes of action were based on California law and that the district court lacked jurisdiction (Troy King v. Hospital Couriers Nevada LLC, No. 4:18-cv-06225, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1926).
FRESNO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Jan. 2 held that a borrower failed to assert required elements to support his claim against a bank for violations of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) and, therefore, the HBOR cause of action and a claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) must be dismissed with leave to amend (Samir Ibrahim Marcoss v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:18-cv-00489, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218025).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — After finding that an attorney failed to show that numerous defendants engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business acts or practices in relation to investigations seeking to disbar her or that she sufficiently alleged a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a California federal judge on Jan. 2 dismissed her claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), RICO and other causes of action against all remaining defendants in the case (Lenore Albert v. Anthony Troy Williams, et al., No. 18-00448, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 490).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California panel on Dec. 28 affirmed trial court rulings that dismissed claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and state constitution asserted by union members in relation to an employer’s random drug-testing practices, holding that the claims were preempted under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) (Hezzack Daniels, et al. v. Recology, Inc., et al., No. A141999, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 3, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8824).
SAN DIEGO — After a borrower voluntarily dismissed the only federal law claims asserted against a bank, a California federal judge on Dec. 27 refused to exercise jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims against other lenders, including causes of action for wrongful foreclosure and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Kathy Westfall v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01403, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216867).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Dec. 28 dismissed claims asserted by a borrower for violations of California’s Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (HBOR), unfair competition law (UCL) and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) with partial leave to amend, holding that he failed to show causation as to the UCL claim and that he failed to plead sufficient facts to support his claims against lenders (John Batieste Greene, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 18-cv-06689, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217597).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 26 reversed a summary judgment decision in favor of the sellers of supplements in which a consumer asserted claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), holding that the purchaser showed by a preponderance of evidence that the challenged advertisements could be misleading under the UCL and CLRA (Kathleen Sonner v. Schwabe North American, Inc., et al., No. 17-55261, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 36460).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Dec. 20 refused to dismiss certain claims against a condominium complex owner asserted by a tenant who alleged that he was discriminated against while living there, allowing his claims for violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action to proceed (Rodney Green, Sr. v. Mercy Housing, Inc., et al., No. 18-04888, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214605).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Dec. 18 granted a transportation company’s motion for summary judgment on a former employee’s claims for violation of California’s labor code and unfair competition law (UCL), holding that he failed to state a cognizable claim for relief (Sadashiv Mares v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-07920, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213022).
SAN FRANCISCO — HIV/AIDS drug purchasers who allege that a health insurer violated their privacy and discriminated against them by requiring the use of mail order or pickup services fail to state claims under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), California unfair competition law (UCL) or Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal judge in California held Dec. 12 (John Doe One, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., et al., No. 18-1031, N.D. Calif.).
TRENTON, N.J. — A California federal judge on Dec. 14 refused to dismiss an information technology company’s claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) in relation to a competitor’s noncompete provision in its employment contract, holding that it has standing to assert the claim and that it sufficiently stated a claim for violation of the UCL (Diversant LLC v. Artech Information Systems, LLC, No. 18-12133, D. N.J., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210749).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Dec. 7 refused to dismiss class action claims that a bank violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) by failing to pay interest on their escrow accounts under the terms of their mortgage agreements, holding that the borrowers’ state law claims were not preempted by federal law (McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 18-01873, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207262).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Dec. 3 dismissed claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), negligent misrepresentation and other causes of action asserted by a patient who alleged that she was injured by a defective device that was implanted to treat deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, holding that she failed to assert sufficient facts to show that the maker of the product knew that it was defective (Sandra Broge v. ALN International Inc., No. 17-cv-07131, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204486).

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