This case is neither a UCL case nor a class action, but I mention it because the concurring and dissenting opinion has a very interesting discussion of the "abuse of discretion" standard of review. Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Dec. 12, 2013) (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) (Rubin, J., concurring).
That discussion begins:
As appellate judges we are taught to consider each case in the context of the applicable standard of review which, for the most part, is one or more of substantial evidence, abuse of discretion, and de novo review. Many appellate decisions and some commentators have criticized the abuse of discretion standard as the most misused and most misunderstood of these. Our colleague in Division 6, Justice Gilbert, has said that the “abuse of discretion standard is itself much abused.” (Ziesmer v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 360, 363.) It is indeed.
Conc. opn. of Rubin, J., slip op. at 1.
UPDATE: On April 16, 2014, the Supreme Court granted review in this case. Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., No. S215990. This is the issue on review, according to the docket:
Was this action properly dismissed for the failure to bring it to trial within five years or should the period during which the action was stayed for purposes of mediation have been excluded under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340, subdivision (b) or (c)?
The Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action as to all but one defendant. Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., 222 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2013).