Two more new UCL decisions: Akkerman v. Mecta Corp. and Benson v. Kwikset Corp.

Two more UCL decisions came down last week:

• Akkerman v. Mecta Corp., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (June 27, 2007) (Second Appellate District, Division Six) (affirming denial of class certification of UCL claim)

• Benson v. Kwikset Corp., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (June 29, 2007) (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) (another post-Mervyn's remand decision)

Comments

[rb]

In the Akkerman case there is a very brief discussion of injunctive relief under the UCL without the need for class certification. Any thoughts on that?

[Kimberly A. Kralowec]

You're talking about the "superiority" analysis on page 9 of the opinion. That part of the opinion could mean a couple of things:

(1) Injunctive relief may be obtained post-Prop. 64 without formal class certification.

(2) The court forgot to analyze the impact of Prop. 64 on the "superiority" prong (and also possibly overlooked Fireside Bank, which overruled the part of Frieman on which the Akkerman court relied; see this blog post for more).

Other ideas?