Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24756962/www-BaileyDaily-com-Cohen-v-DirecTV-Depublication-Request-CAOC
Timestamp: 2013-12-20 20:06:33
Document Index: 136406094

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17200', '§ 17200', '§ 17200', '§11', '§21', '§21']

P. 1www.BaileyDaily.com: Cohen v DirecTV Depublication Request (CAOC)www.BaileyDaily.com: Cohen v DirecTV Depublication Request (CAOC)Ratings: 0|Views: 669|Likes: 0Published by www.BaileyDaily.comHonorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court December 23, 2009 Page 2 CAOC has regularly participated as an amicus curiae in cases before this Court relating to the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) (“UCL”), including Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC, 39 Cal.4th 223 (2006), In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (“Tobacco II”), and, most recently, Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., no. S166435. CAOC has a strong interHonorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court December 23, 2009 Page 2 CAOC has regularly participated as an amicus curiae in cases before this Court relating to the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) (“UCL”), including Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC, 39 Cal.4th 223 (2006), In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (“Tobacco II”), and, most recently, Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., no. S166435. CAOC has a strong interMore info: categoriesBusiness/Law, FinancePublished by: www.BaileyDaily.com on Jan 04, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24756962/www-BaileyDaily-com-Cohen-v-DirecTV-Depublication-Request-CAOC05/24/2012pdftextoriginal Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of theCalifornia Supreme CourtDecember 23, 2009Page 2CAOC has regularly participated as an amicus curiae in cases before this Courtrelating to the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) (“UCL”),including
Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC , 39 Cal.4th 223 (2006),
Inre Tobacco II Cases
, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (“
Tobacco II ”), and, most recently,
, no. S166435. CAOC has a strong interest in participating as anamicus curiae in cases, like this one, impacting the interpretation of Proposition 64 and
Tobacco II .
CAOC seeks depublication of Cohen
for two reasons.First,
should be depublished because it is inconsistent with this Court’sopinion in
Tobacco II and therefore could be misused as a precedent.From a procedural standpoint,
Tobacco II is indistinguishable from
, yet thetwo opinions reached different outcomes. In
Tobacco II , an order
classcertification of a UCL “fraudulent” prong claim was reinstated, whereas in
, anorder
class certification of a UCL “fraudulent” prong claim was affirmed. As aresult, the body of California decisional law now includes two conflicting opinions,decided on the same procedural posture and on virtually identical operative facts, butreaching different conclusions.If the conflicting opinions had both come from the Court of Appeal, review by thisCourt would have been warranted.
Instead, one of those decisions is by a lowerappellate court that should have been bound by this Court’s ruling in
Thisstate of affairs “could lead to unanticipated misuse [of Cohen
] as precedent” in the lower
In addition, the undersigned, a CAOC Board member, is the author of The UCLPractitioner (www.uclpractitioner.com), an online treatise written in the form of a Weblog, which has closely followed developments in the law relating to the UCL andProposition 64 for more than six years. As such, the undersigned has a substantialacademic and professional interest in participating in the evolution of that law.
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.500(b)(1) (review of a Court of Appeal opinionmay be ordered “[w]hen necessary to secure uniformity of decision”).
McClung v. Employment Development Dept.
, 34 Cal.4th 467, 473 (2004)(“Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a highercourt.”);
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court , 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (1962) (same).
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of theCalifornia Supreme CourtDecember 23, 2009Page 3courts by giving them a basis to depart from
Tobacco II ’s binding dictates.
Eisenberg, Horvitz & Weiner,
California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs
§11:180.1 (The Rutter Group 2008);
see also California Civil Appellate Practice
, §21.17(CEB 3d ed. 2009) (depublication appropriate where an “opinion … unnecessarily createsa conflict”). It is
Tobacco II , not
might hold), that declares thelaw in California. Depublication of Cohen
will ensure uniformity of decision andeliminate the possibility of confusion among the lower courts.Second,
should be depublished because it either misinterpreted ormisapplied
Tobacco II . As a result, its holding is incorrect.
See California Civil Appellate Practice
, §21.17 (depublication warranted where “the opinion isincorrect”).
’s reasoning is inconsistent not only with
Tobacco II , but also withimportant precedents of this Court pre-dating
Tobacco II , including the unanimousopinion in
Gentry v. Superior Court , 42 Cal.4th 443 (2007),
Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court , 40 Cal.4th 360 (2007), and
, 29 Cal.3d 462 (1981)—all of which acknowledge the importance of theclass action device to the effective enforcement of California’s remedial laws.
Tobacco II refused to require unnamed class members to prove “reliance” in UCLcases because (among other reasons) doing so “would effectively eliminate the classaction lawsuit as a vehicle for the vindication of [consumer] rights.”
Tobacco II , 46Cal.4th at 321. That would, in turn, contravene the assurances to voters in the Prop. 64ballot materials that “the initiative would not undermine the efficacy of the UCL as ameans of protecting consumer rights.”
would import a “reliance” element into UCL claims—not at the standingstage, but at the class certification stage, as “a proper criterion for the court’sconsideration when examining ‘commonality.’”
, 178 Cal.App.4th at 982.According to
, this is proper because
Tobacco II only addressed “standing,” not“commonality.”
at 981.This is a false distinction. If a “reliance” element is imported into UCL classclaims at
stage of the analysis—standing, class certification, or liability at trial—theeffect is the same: elimination of the class action device in UCL consumer protectioncases because common questions would not predominate.
As discussed in more detail
In some consumer fraud cases, a presumption of classwide reliance would ariseunder
Vasquez v. Superior Court , 4 Cal.3d 800 (1971), and class certification would beappropriate. Having held that unnamed class members need not prove reliance in UCL