Last week, the Supreme Court set two UCL preemption cases for oral argument on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Los Angeles:
S128576 Prachasaisoradej v. Ralph’s Grocery Company, Inc.: "Does an employee bonus plan based on a profit figure that is reduced by a store's expenses, including the cost of workers compensation insurance and cash and inventory losses, violate (a) Business and Professions Code section 17200, (b) Labor Code sections 221, 400 through 410, or 3751, or (c) California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 11070?"
S129522 In re Tobacco Cases II: "Does the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1331 et seq.) preempt claims under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, sections 17200 et seq.) for advertising that allegedly targeted minors?" This case is not to be confused with the other Supreme Court case called In re Tobacco Cases II, no. S147345, in which Prop. 64's "injury in fact" language will be construed.
In addition, a third UCL preemption case will be heard on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco:
S140064 Viva! International Voice for Animals et al. v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations et al.: "Does the doctrine of conflict preemption preclude California from prohibiting importation and trade of wildlife that have been delisted under the federal Endangered Species Act and thus are not currently regulated by federal law?" The Court of Apppeal held that federal law preempted the plaintiff's UCL claim, which formed the basis for the suit. Prop. 64 retroactivity and associational standing were also raised at the intermediate appellate level.