A bunch of new UCL and class action decisions have been handed down over the past week and a half:
Schultz v. Neovi Data Corp., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (June 15, 2007) (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) (a Mervyn's "grant and hold" case on remand to the Court of Appeal)
Linear Technologies Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (June 18, 2007) (Sixth Appellate District) (a UCL competitor action)
Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (June 22, 2007) (First Appellate District, Division Five) (another case invalidating a no-class-action arbitration clause)
In re: Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Mortgage Servicing Litigation, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. June 22, 2007) (the Seventh Circuit mentions the UCL again, and the CLRA, too, and warns lawyers not to file "a hideous sprawling mess" of a complaint)
Lott v. Pfizer, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. June 25, 2007) (addresses CAFA and the right to recover attorneys' fees after improper removal; see this post on the Seventh Circuit's prior opinion in the same case)
McAdams v. Monier, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (May 30, 2007, modified June 25, 2007) (Third Appellate District) (court just issued an order modifying the original opinion; an interesting change in wording re "
restitution" "reliance")Juarez v. Arcadia Financial., Ltd., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (June 26, 2007) (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) (probably the most interesting of the bunch; addresses UCL remedies)
I've had limited time to read or analyze these decisions. Time permitting, I will post more about them later on.
The Ocwen Loan decision to which you referred deserves particular attention. There, at pp. 17-28 while remanding, Judge Posner attempts to apply the US Supreme Court's new heightened pleading requirements for antitrust cases (in last month's Bell Atlantic case) to a non-antitrust, consumer remedies (including California's UCL) lawsuit. He's the first to do so, and I'd predict he won't be the last.
Posted by: Andrew Sussman | Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 08:50 AM
Thanks. That aspect of the Ocwen opinion jumped out at me immediately, even on a quick read. It's very problematic, even alarming. Fortunately, Twombly does not apply to cases filed in California state courts.
Posted by: Kimberly A. Kralowec | Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 09:33 AM