Source: http://thecomplexlitigator.com/post-data/category/Class+Actions%3A+CLRA
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 05:11:28
Document Index: 602089216

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1781', '§ 1', '§ 17204', '§ 1071', '§ 1078', '§ 1098']

Diverging from other California authority, the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, holds that the FAA preempts the CLRA's ban on class action waivers
August 1, 2012 H. Scott Leviant
Opinions concerning arbitration issues seem less about uniformity of analysis these days and more about the politics of arbitration. Sophistry comes to mind. Consider the following observation: "Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that an arbitration provision 'shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.' 9 U.S.C. § 2." AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1753, 179 L. Ed. 2d 742 (2011), J. Thomas conc. This seems straightforward enough. And yet, in Caron v. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC (July 30, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three), managed to conclude that the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) prohibition on class action waivers in any consumer contract was pre-empted by the FAA. A rule prohibiting class action waivers in any form of consumer contract is, according to this reasoning, not a ground in law for the revocation of such contracts. It is, instead, a provision that "interferes" with the FAA.
I could walk through the analysis and discuss it in a neutral and dispassionate tone, but that would waste precious minutes of my life. Blunt will serve just as well here. The reasoning in Caron is nonsensical. The Supreme Court claims that its FAA jurisprudence is intended only to "place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts...." Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. at 1742. That's not what is happening here. Instead, the FAA is being used to grant a superior status to arbitration agreements. Case in point? The Caron decision:
Defendants argue the trial court erred because the FAA preempts the CLRA's prohibition against class action waivers and therefore the trial court could not rely on the CLRA as a ground for denying Defendants' petitions. Based on the United State Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) ___ U.S. ___, ___; 131 S.Ct. 1740 (AT&T Mobility), we agree the FAA preempts the CLRA's anti-waiver provision because the provision acts as an obstacle to the FAA's intention of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms.
Slip op., at 2. What? The FAA, in section 2, limits the FAA's reach. The Caron Court doesn't ensure that an arbitration agreement is judged on an equal footing with other contracts. It is placing arbitration agreements before a state's right to specify the lawful subject matter of contracts. The reasoning used in Caron could be used to vitiate section 2 of the FAA. After all, every defense to a contract is an "obstacle" to the FAA's intention of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms, even if those terms are unlawful. Caron dismisses this limitation on the FAA's reach by simply concluding that the case before it presents the same situation as Concepcion:
The plaintiffs in AT&T Mobility “argue[d] that the Discover Bank rule, given its origins in California's unconscionability doctrine and California's policy against exculpation, is a ground that 'exist[ed] at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract' under FAA § 2” and therefore the FAA did not preempt the rule. (AT&T Mobility, supra, 131 S.Ct. at p. 1746.) The Supreme Court rejected that argument, explaining the FAA's preemptive effect may “extend even to grounds traditionally thought to exist '"at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract[]"'" when those grounds “have been applied in a fashion that disfavors arbitration.” (Id. at p. 1747.)
Slip op., at 13. From this, the Caron Court concludes that the same reasoning would apply here. However, that distorts the facts. In Caron, the agreement at issue contained the following "poison pill" clause:
If any part of this Arbitration Clause, other than waivers of class action rights, is deemed or found to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder shall remain enforceable. If a waiver of class action rights is deemed or found to be unenforceable for any reason in a case in which class action allegations have been made, the remainder or this Arbitration Clause shall be unenforceable.
Slip op., at 4. This agreement anticipates the potential illegality of the clause at issue. By its own terms, the agreement chooses to reject arbitration if it must occur in the class context. There is no law banning arbitration here. There is a general rule govering consumer contracts that specifies the lawful terms of those agreements. The agreement contains a self-executing kill switch. Had the agreement been silent, the Stolt-Neilsen analysis should have concluded that, aware of California law, the parties anticipated the potential for a class action. But how the Court concludes that the CLRA's regulation of consumer contracts constitutes "interference" with consumer contracts sufficient to pre-empt the CLRA's general regulation of consumer contracts is beyond me.
Section 2 of the FAA is not a nugatory clause. Efforts to interpret it out of existence should be rejected. Given that Caron diverges from Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 601 (2010), it appears that further guidance from the California Supreme Court would benefit parties to consumer contracts.
In Class Actions: New Opinions, Class Actions: Arbitration, Class Actions: CLRA Tags Arbitration, CLRA, Court of Appeal
Certiorari denied in Ticketmaster, et al. v. Stearns, et al.
April 23, 2012 H. Scott Leviant
On the consumer litigation front, today the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Ticketmaster, et al. v. Stearns, et al. (Sup. Ct. Case No. 11-983). Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) examined a number of consumer law concepts in the class context. For example, the Ninth Circuit shot down the federal court standing challenge attempted in UCL actions post-Tobacco II. And, on the issue of reliance in CLRA claims, the Court said:
A CLRA claim warrants an analysis different from a UCL claim because the CLRA requires each class member to have an actual injury caused by the unlawful practice. Steroid Hormone Prod. Cases, 181 Cal.App.4th 145, 155-56, 104 Cal. Rptr.3d 329, 337 (2010). But "[c]ausation, on a classwide basis, may be established by materiality. If the trial court finds that material misrepresentations have been made to the entire class, an inference of reliance arises as to the class." Vioxx, 180 Cal.App.4th at 129, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d at 95; see also Vasquez v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 800, 814, 484 P.2d 964, 973, 94 Cal.Rptr. 796, 805 (1971); Steroid, 181 Cal. App.4th at 156-57, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d at 338. This rule applies to cases regarding omissions or "failures to disclose" as well. See McAdams v. Monier, Inc., 182 Cal.App.4th 174, 184, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 704, 711 (2010) (holding that because of defendant's failure to disclose information "which would have been material to any reasonable person who purchased" the product, a presumption of reliance was justified); Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1282, 1293, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 190, 198 (2002) ("[H]ere the record permits an inference of common reliance. Plaintiffs contend Mass Mutual failed to disclose its own concerns about the premiums it was paying and that those concerns would have been material to any reasonable person contemplating the purchase...." If proved, that would "be sufficient to give rise to the inference of common reliance on representations which were materially deficient.").
Stearns, at 1022.
In Class Actions: CLRA, Class Actions: Consumer Issues, Class Actions: UCL Tags Article III, CLRA, Tobacco II, UCL, United States Supreme Court
Court revives claims of failure to disclose and active concealment of defects from computer purchasers
January 12, 2012 H. Scott Leviant
Reporting on this case pains me greatly. I should be pleased to report on a CLRA and UCL decision that revives consumer claims. But all I feel is pain. Let me explain by quoting from the case. The very first sentence says, "In this class action alleging a failure to disclose a computer defect involving a microchip that controlled floppy disk data transmission, plaintiffs Tammy Collins and Rudolph Roma appeal from a judgment on the pleadings." Huh? Floppy disk data transmission. Rings a bell. Nope, can't place it. Must be some highfalutin, newfangled technology. I recognize "data." Anyhow, in Collins v. eMachines, Inc. (pub. ord. December 21, 2011), the Court reviewed a trial court order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
It was alleged that defendant failed to disclose and actively concealed the disk controller defect from potential purchasers. Despite knowing of the defect and knowing that the defect could result in critical data corruption, executives of eMachines directed the company to continue to sell the defective computers after October 31, 1999. eMachines actively concealed the existence of the defect from purchasers by, among other practices specified in the FAC, continuing to issue the warranty knowing the computers had the defect, and engaging in misleading “customer service” practices that concealed the defect in online “customer support” guides, in customer service diagnoses of computer problems, and at call centers. The case was stayed for four years while cases in other states moved forward.
Turning first to the CLRA, the Court restated the LiMandri circumstances giving rise to actionable deceit. The Court recognized the FAC as alleging factor (2), when the defendant has exclusive knowledge of material facts not known or reasonably accessible to the plaintiff, and factor (3), when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff. The Court then agreed that a "reasonable" consumer would certainly find data corruption to be material information in connection with a computer.
Next, the Court distinguished Daugherty, observing that, in Daugherty, the only represetation made was the warranty, and the vehicles performed adequately as warranted. The Court was similarly dismissive of Bardin, in which it was alleged that exhaust manifolds were likely to fail after the warranty period. The Court explained that the manifolds in Bardin worked they way they were supposed to under the warranty. Contrasting the circumstances, the Court said, "Because a floppy disk, at the time of the complaint, was integral to the storage, access, and transport of accurate computer data, the floppy disk was central to the function of a computer as a computer. The exhaust manifolds at issue in Bardin, by contrast, were just blowing smoke." Slip op., at 12. That's funny. You see, the exhaust manifold vents combustion byproducts...
Regarding the UCL, the Court relied on its discussion about Daugherty and Bardin to conclude that a claim under the UCL was easily stated as well. The Court agreed that consumers certainly had an expectation about data integrity when they purchased the affected computers.
After also concluding that the allegations supported a claim for common law fraud, the Court concluded that legal remedies were adequate, rendering an unjust enrichment claim unnecessary.
I should also tag this one with "Dinosaurs," given the discussion of floppy disk drives. That reminds me that I should tell you about the time I saved data on a bent floppy disk drive by removing the casing and putting the raw disk in a disk drive. The year was 1985. Madonna, Huey Lewis, Duran Duran and Wham! were dominating the charts...
[extended period of blank stares]
...and that's how I saved all that data!
In Class Actions: New Opinions, Class Actions: CLRA, Class Actions: Consumer Issues, Class Actions: UCL Tags CLRA, Consumer Law, Court of Appeal, UCL
In Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC, Court slays arbitration agreement, comments on Concepcion and Armendariz
October 24, 2011 H. Scott Leviant
With AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011) in the bank and earning interest, the new defense playbook includes a renewed, direct assault on Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000). But in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (October 24, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) stongly declared the ongoing viability of Armendariz after Concepcion. In other words, Concepcion is to state law unconscionability analysis as tap water is to vampires - no effect.
The allegations are easy to summarize. Plaintiff Sanchez wanted to buy a used Mercedes. The dealer charged him $3,700 to have the vehicle "certified" as eligible for a lower interest rate. That was a lie. The charge was for an undisclosed and optional extended warranty. The dealer charged him new tire fees when not all of the tires were new. Plaintiff was also told that the vehicle was a "certified" used Mercedes, having been through a rigorous inspection and maintenance process. That was also a lie. Sanchez filed a class action alleging, among other things, violations of the CLRA, ASFA, UCL, Song-Beverly Act, and Public Resources Code section 42885.
Valencia moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the CLRA expressly provides for class actions and declares the right to a class action to be unwaivable. (See Civ. Code, §§ 1781, 1751.) As a consequence, the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable. Further, because the agreement included a poison pill clause, the unenforceability of the class action waiver made the entire arbitration provision unenforceable. The trial court therefore denied the motion. Valencia appealed.
The Court of Appeal began its discussion by summarizing its conclusion:
We do not address whether the class action waiver is unenforceable. Rather, we conclude the arbitration provision as a whole is unconscionable: The provision is procedurally unconscionable because it is adhesive and satisfies the elements of oppression and surprise; it is substantively unconscionable because it contains terms that are one-sided in favor of the car dealer to the detriment of the buyer. Because the provision contains multiple invalid terms, it is permeated with unconscionability and unenforceable. Severance of the offending terms is not appropriate. It follows that the case should be heard in a court of law.
Slip op., at 10. Next, focusing on Concepcion and Armendariz, the Court said:
Before applying Armendariz to the present case, we note that Concepcion, supra, 131 S.Ct. 1740, does not preclude the application of the Armendariz principles to determine whether an arbitration provision is unconscionable. Concepcion disapproved the "Discover Bank rule," stating: "In Discover Bank, the California Supreme Court applied [the doctrine of unconscionability] to class-action waivers in arbitration agreements and held as follows: [¶] '[W]hen the [class action] waiver is found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages, and when it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money, then . . . the waiver becomes in practice the exemption of the party "from responsibility for [its] own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another." Under these circumstances, such waivers are unconscionable under California law and should not be enforced.'" (Concepcion, at p. 1746, italics added.) With the exception of the Discover Bank rule, the Court acknowledged that the doctrine of unconscionability is still a basis for invalidating arbitration provisions. (Concepcion, at pp. 1746, 1747; see Kanbar v. O’Melveny & Myers (N.D.Cal. 2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79447, pp. *15–*16, *23–*24, 2011 WL 2940690, pp. *6, *9.) Thus, Concepcion is inapplicable where, as here, we are not concerned with a class action waiver or a judicially imposed procedure that conflicts with the arbitration provision and the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16). (See Concepcion, at pp. 1748–1753.)
Slip op., at 11-12. In the balance of the opinion, the Court found procedural unconscionability (one-sided and surprise) and substantive unconscionability (several terms favoring dealer). The Court then concluded that some of the substantive defects could not be cured by striking provisions.
The Court explicity declined to address the issue of whether the CLRA rendered the class action waiver provision unenforceable.
Justice Rothschild concurred in the judgment.
In Class Actions: New Opinions, Class Actions: Arbitration, Class Actions: CLRA Tags Arbitration, Armendariz, Concepcion, Court of Appeal
Will the Ninth Circuit affirm nationwide certification of state law claims?
April 30, 2010 H. Scott Leviant
In the matter of Mazza, et al v. American Honda Motor Company, the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument on June 9, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in Pasadena, California. Defendant's Rule 23 Petition was granted after the District Court certified UCL and CLRA claims on a nationwide basis. The District Court's extensive discussion of choice-of-law analysis may be the primary focus. The outcome may prove to be significant for the many Toyota acceleration cases assigned to Judge Selna in the same Central District from which Mazza was issued. I would like to attend and provide a detailed account of the argument, but my schedule may not permit it. If I cannot attend, I will try to arrange for someone to report in my absence.
In Class Actions: CLRA, Class Actions: Certification, Class Actions: UCL, Current Affairs, Ninth Circuit Tags CLRA, Ninth Circuit, UCL
Companion opinions involving billing practices by Sharp Healthcare (Durell and Hale) examine UCL standing
April 20, 2010 H. Scott Leviant
Sharp Healthcare is responsible for two of the three published decisions issued today that concern class action issues. Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (April 19, 2010) and Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (April 19, 2010) both concern putative class actions. Both involve billing practices by Sharp Healthcare related to its "regular" billing rate. Both concern trial court orders sustaining demurrers to UCL causes of action. And both pronounce new situations where "reliance" is required for UCL claims. However, the outcomes in the two appeals differ by the width of, at most, a couple of sentences of allegations; one passes muster as a "reliance" allegations and one does not.
Both cases concern the basic theory that Sharp engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by billing uninsured patients its full standardized rates for services, when it substantially discounts those rates for patients covered by Medicare or private insurance. Both cases questioned, in slightly different ways, what actually constitutes the "regular rates" charged to patients.
In the Durell opinion, the Court focused on the causation aspect of standing:
The court sustained the demurrer to the UCL cause of action without leave to amend on the ground Durell lacks standing to pursue the claim. The court found the SAC insufficiently alleges "injury in fact" and causation. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) As to causation, the court explained the SAC fails to allege Durell was harmed "as a result of" Sharp's conduct. (Ibid.) For instance, the SAC does not allege he "relied on Sharp charging its 'usual and customary rates' in receiving treatment." We turn first to the causation issue, which we find dispositive.
Durell, at 12. The Court found the absence of allegations of "reliance" to be the key defect in Durell's pleading:
The SAC does not allege Durell relied on either Sharp's Web site representations or on the language in the Agreement for Services in going to Sharp Grossmont Hospital or in seeking or accepting services once he was transported there. Indeed, the SAC does not allege Durell ever visited Sharp's Web site or even that he ever read the Agreement for Services.
Durell, at 14.
Plaintiff Hale, on the other hand, alleged facts that satisfied the Court's examination of "injury in fact" and standing:
Even though the SAC alleges Hale has paid only $500 of her $14,447.65 medical bill, it also alleges the Admission Agreement obligates her to pay Sharp the balance on her account. Thus, she faces at least an imminent invasion or injury to a legally protected interest. (See Troyk, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1346.) The term "imminent" is defined as "ready to take place," "hanging threateningly over one's head," and "menacingly near." (Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict. (1993) p. 1130.) Certainly, this is not the type of action Proposition 64 was intended to squelch. Hale was a bona fide consumer of medical services.
Hale, at 11. Though thin, the Court agreed that Hale did plead a form of "reliance" sufficient to withstand demurrer:
We agree with Hale, however, that "to the extent [she] is bringing a fraud-based claim under the UCL, she has reasonably pled reliance." The SAC alleges Hale signed the Admission Agreement, and "at the time of signing the contract, she was expecting to be charged 'regular rates,' and certainly not the grossly excessive rates that she was subsequently billed." (Italics added.) This allegation appears in the breach of contract cause of action, but the UCL cause of action incorporates the allegations of all other causes of action. We must interpret the complaint reasonably, "reading it as a whole and its parts in their context." (Stearn v. County of San Bernardino (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 434, 439.) As Hale notes, the "difference between 'expecting' to be charged regular rates and 'relying' on being charged regular rates is a distinction without a difference." We see no utility in requiring Hale to amend her complaint to exchange the term "expecting" for the term "relying."
Hale, at 14-15. Lesson one from these cases is that small differences in pleading facts can make a big difference.
But discussing allegations was not the headline-worthy event in these two opinions. The Court extended the concept of "reliance" discussed in Tobacco II's discussion of the UCL "fraudulent" prong to any "unlawful" prong claim asserting a legal violation that involves deception:
Construing the phrase "as a result of" in Business and Professions Code section 17204 in light of Proposition 64's intention to limit private enforcement actions under the UCL, we conclude the reasoning of Tobacco II applies equally to the "unlawful" prong of the UCL when, as here, the predicate unlawfulness is misrepresentation and deception. A consumer's burden of pleading causation in a UCL action should hinge on the nature of the alleged wrongdoing rather than the specific prong of the UCL the consumer invokes. This is a case in which the "concept of reliance" unequivocally applies (Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 325, fn. 17), and omitting an actual reliance requirement when the defendant's alleged misrepresentation has not deceived the plaintiff "would blunt Proposition 64's intended reforms." (Cattie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (S.D.Cal. 2007) 504 F.Supp.2d 939, 948.)
With a new category of "reliance" pleading required for certain "unlawful" prong claims, the Court turned its high-powered, neutrino-powered conservative ray on the "unfair" prong of the UCL. Durell's "unfair" prong claim also found no success. After reviewing the post-Cel-Tech hairball, the Court applied its own prior precedent that defines a very strict test for "unfair" conduct:
Here, the court's order does not specifically address the "unfair" prong of the UCL. The SAC alleges Sharp's conduct violates public policy, and is "immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous," a vague test of unfairness this court rejects. The SAC does not allege the conduct is tethered to any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision, or that it threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of an antitrust law. In his briefing, Durell does not address Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th 163, and its affect on the definition of "unfair" in consumer UCL cases, or this court's opinions in Scripps Clinic, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 917, and Byars, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th 1134. We conclude the court properly granted the demurrer as to the claim under the "unfair" prong of the UCL.
Durell, at 19.
On the flip side, Hale's CLRA claim lives to fight another day, benefiting from the Court's "reliance" pleading analysis set forth in its discussion of Hale's UCL claim:
Again, however, to the extent Hale's CLRA claim is fraud-based, the SAC adequately alleges the reliance element. Thus, the court erred by sustaining the demurrer to the CLRA cause of action.
Hale, at 16.
I will look forward to reading The UCL Practitioner's assessment of these two opinions.
In Class Actions: New Opinions, Class Actions: CLRA, Class Actions: General, Class Actions: UCL Tags CLRA, Court of Appeal, Demurrer, Tobacco II, UCL
Class allegations stricken in suit alleging defective control panels in certain Whirlpool and Kenmore machines
April 8, 2010 H. Scott Leviant
United States District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel (Northern District of California) granted, with leave to amend, a motion to strike class allegations in a suit alleging a defect in Whirlpool-manufactured top-loading Kenmore Elite Oasis automatic washing machines (“the Machines”) that Sears marketed, advertised, distributed, warranted, and offered to repair. Tietsworth v. Sears Roebuck and Co., et al., 2010 WL 1268093 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010). The alleged defect in an electronic control board causes machines to stop mid-cycle.
The Court concluded that the class was not ascertainable as defined:
[T]he putative classes alleged in paragraph 98 cannot be ascertained because they include members who have not experienced any problems with their Machines' Electronic Control Boards-or for that matter with any other part of the Machine. “Such members have no injury and no standing to sue.” Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc., No. 08-5788 JF (PVT), 2009 WL 5069144, at *6 (N.D.Cal.2009); see also Bishop, 1996 WL 33150020, at *5 (“courts have refused to certify class actions based on similar ‘tendency to fail’ theories because the purported class includes members who have suffered no injury and therefore lack standing to sue.”).
Order, at 19.
The opinion also includes an extensive discussion of pleading standards applicable to many different claims for relief predicated on failure to disclose or concealment allegations.
In Class Actions: New Opinions, Class Actions: Ascertainability, Class Actions: CLRA, Class Actions: Consumer Issues, Class Actions: General, Class Actions: UCL Tags Judge Jeremy Fogel, U.S. District Court
McAdams v. Monier, Inc. opinion after remand is published; most of original opinion remains intact
February 24, 2010 H. Scott Leviant
In a prior published opinion, McAdams v. Monier, Inc. (May 30, 2007, C051841), as mod. June 25, 2007, reversed a trial court order denying certification of the proposed CLRA and UCL classes. The gravamen of the complaint was an alleged failure to disclose that the color composition of defendant's roof tiles would erode away, leaving bare concrete, well before the end of the tiles‟ represented 50-year lifetime. Then, the Supreme Court granted review and deferred the matter (grant and hold) in light of In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 (Tobacco II), pending on the Supreme Court's docket at the time. After Tobacco II was decided, the Supreme Court remanded with directions to vacate the decision and reconsider in light of Tobacco II.
Today, the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) issued its amended Opinion on Remand in McAdams v. Monier, Inc. (February 24, 2010). But indicating that much of its Opinion would remain unchanged, the Court said, "In doing so, we reiterate our position involving the CLRA, as Tobacco II concerned only the UCL." Slip op., at 2. Going on, the Court summarized the new Opinion as follows:
We agree with case law that an “inference of common reliance” may be applied to a CLRA class that alleges a material misrepresentation consisting of a failure to disclose a particular fact. (Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1293 (Massachusetts Mutual).)
As for the UCL, we remand for the trial court to determine if the representative plaintiff meets the Proposition 64 standing requirements, as interpreted in Tobacco II. Otherwise, we find the UCL action suitable for class certification.
Consequently, we reverse the trial court's order denying certification of the proposed CLRA and UCL classes. We do so, however, with one proviso as to defining these classes, which we will explain in this opinion: The members of these classes, prior to purchasing or obtaining their Monier roof tile product, had to have been exposed to a statement along the lines that the roof tile would last 50 years, or would have a permanent color, or would be maintenance-free. (See Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 324.)
Slip op., at 2-3.
The opinion is extensive in its analysis of both the CLRA and the UCL. The CLRA discussion is interesting for many reasons, including approving citation of the standing analysis in Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co. (N.D.Cal. 2005) 369 F.Supp.2d 1138 (slip op., at 17) and clarification (and, to a degree, limitation) of the extent of the misrepresentation/omission discussion in Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 30 (slip op., at 13-16).
The UCL discussion is also interesting on many levels. For instance, the Court provides a simple reminder about what happened in Tobacco II: "In Tobacco II, the high court reversed an order that had denied class certification in a UCL lawsuit." Slip op., at 21. In other words, it reversed every element of the trial court order and Court of Appeal Opinion necessary to support that order. Ultimately, the Court applied much of its certification analysis discusses in its CLRA discussion to the UCL claim, concluding that certification was appropriate. The Court then directed the trial court "to determine whether the representative plaintiff can establish UCL standing as defined in Tobacco II and, if not, whether amendment should be permitted to add a new class representative." Slip op., at 28.
Update on 2010-02-24 21:55 by The Complex Litigator
Check The UCL Practitioner for more on Monier. Ms. Kralowec has reported extensively on this case and has promised to post detailed comments soon.
In Class Actions: New Opinions, Class Actions: CLRA, Class Actions: Certification, Class Actions: Consumer Issues, Class Actions: General, Class Actions: UCL Tags California Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Tobacco II
Ninth Circuit holds that the Higher Education Act (HEA), and its Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), preempt state law claims for unfair billing practices
January 26, 2010 H. Scott Leviant
The Higher Education Act (HEA) was passed “to keep the college door open to all students of ability, regardless of socioeconomic background.” Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). Congress also Congress established the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), a system of loan guarantees meant to encourage lenders to loan money to students and their parents on favorable terms. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1071-1087-4; Rowe, 559 F.3d at 1030. In Chae, et al. v. SLM Corporation, dba Sallie Mae, et al. (9th Cir. January 25, 2010), the Ninth Circuit considered whether the HEA and FFELP preempted state law consumer protection claims in a putative class action alleging false and misleading disclosures about billing practices.
The Court excluded field preemption from its analysis, noting: "Turning now to the issues before us, we have previously held that field preemption does not apply to the HEA." Chae, at 1382. With that, the Court analyzed whether "express preemption" or "conflict preemption" were present.
The Ninth Circuit found that express preemption applied to the claims in Chae:
Congress has enacted several express preemption provisions applicable to FFELP participants. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. §§ 1078(d), 1091a(a)(2)(B), 1091a(b)(1)-(3), 1095a(a), 1098g. These provisions expressly preempt the operation of state usury laws, statutes of limitations, limitations on recovering the costs of debt collection, infancy defenses to contract liability, wage garnishment limitations, and disclosure requirements. This last provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1098g, is entitled, “Exemption from State disclosure requirements.” The text of the statute reads: “Loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act . . . shall not be subject to any disclosure requirements of any State law.” Id. The FFELP falls within Title IV of the HEA, and is thus subject to its express preemption provision.
Chae, at 1383. The Court then explained its disagreement with the plaintiffs' characterization of their claims as misrepresentation claims, not disclosure claims:
At bottom, the plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims are improper-disclosure claims. The plaintiffs do not contend that California law prevents Sallie Mae from employing any of the three loan-servicing practices at issue. We consider these allegations in substance to be a challenge to the allegedly misleading method Sallie Mae used to communicate with the plaintiffs about its practices. In this context, the state-law prohibition on misrepresenting a business practice “is merely the converse” of a state-law requirement that alternate disclosures be made. See Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 527.
Chae, at 1384. The Court was not sympathetic to the plaintiffs' argument that a finding of preemption would eliminate any recourse for unfair practices by Sallie Mae. The Court, in a footnote, suggested that the plaintiffs' only remedy was to complain to the Department of Education. Chae, at 1384-85, n. 6.
Finally, the Court concluded, after a lengthy discussion, that application of state consumer protection laws would directly conflict with the uniformity and stability goal behind the FFELP.
In Class Actions: New Opinions, Class Actions: CLRA, Class Actions: Consumer Issues, Class Actions: Pre-emption, Class Actions: UCL, Ninth Circuit Tags FFELP, HEA, Ninth Circuit, Preemption