Here are the review petition and other documents from Rose v. Bank of America, no. S199074, in which the Supreme Court granted review on March 14, 2012:
- Petition for review (filed 12/30/11)
- Answer to petition for review (filed 01/20/12)
- Reply in support of petition for review (filed 01/31/12)
- Amicus letter of AG's office in support of petition for review (dated 01/31/12)
I have not seen the answer to the petition for review. If you have a copy, please forward it and I will add it to the list above. [UPDATE: Many thanks to the blog reader who provided a copy of the answer to the petition for review. ]
The AG's letter is interesting. According to the letter (at p. 4), the Court of Appeal in Rose held that a UCL "unlawful" prong claim may not be "predicated on violations of federal laws where Congress did not provide a private right of action." I did not read the Rose opinion quite so broadly, but if this is what it held, that is certainly inconsistent with California Supreme Court precedents. The letter makes a series of excellent arguments in support of review.
Here is the docket's statement of the issue on review in Rose:
Can a cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) be predicated on an alleged violation of the Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.), despite Congress's repeal of the private right of action initially provided for under that Act?