In County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Corp., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Mar. 3, 2006), the Court of Appeal held that a group of California public entities, including Santa Clara County and others, may seek to require certain paint manufacturers to pay to abate the hazards caused by lead paint. The press coverage heralded the plaintiffs' victory in having their claims restored. However, the last few pages of the opinion affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the UCL claim because, as pleaded, it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Slip op. at 50-53.) The Court of Appeal did not take the opportunity to address whether the discovery rule applies to UCL claims. Other than that loss, the opinion was a complete victory for the public entites.