New UCL "unfair" prong decision: Eddins v. Sumner Redstone

In Eddins v. Sumner Redstone, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Nov. 22, 2005), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) construed the UCL's "unlawful" prong in the context of an action between business competitors. The Court determined that the trial court properly granted summary adjudication of the plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim, but erred in also granting summary adjudication of the UCL claim. The trial court relied on Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp., 93 Cal.App.4th 363, 375 (2001), which held that conduct is not "unfair" within the meaning of the UCL if it is "deemed reasonable and condoned under the antitrust laws." Citing Cel-Tech, the Court of Appeal found that Chavez only applies to a UCL "unlawful" prong claim predicated on the Cartwright Act, but not to a UCL "unfair" prong claim. I've always thought that this aspect of Chavez was inconsistent with Cel-Tech, so it's nice to see another panel decline to follow it.

Comments

[John Hurley]

Eddins v. Sumner Redstone actually seems to be a pretty vanilla "unlawful" case with respect to the UCL. The Court of Appeal decided that because there was a triable issue of material fact on a claim under the Unfair Practices Act, it was also error to grant summarry adjudication on a UCL claim:

"[S]ince the defendants’ conduct may be unlawful under the Unfair Practices Act, it necessarily follows that summary judgment on the UCL claim was also erroneous."

[Kimberly]

Looking at the case again, I think John's right.