I'm coming up on a particularly busy period at work and am therefore putting the blog on hiatus once again. You can always reach me at my office by phone (415-788-4220) or by email at [email protected]. I will interrupt the hiatus for significant events of interest (such as the Ninth Circuit's Dukes v. Wal-Mart ruling or any ruling on the Tobacco rehearing petition).
One thing I hope to follow is trial courts' application of the Tobacco case. If you learn of any trial-level rulings (state or federal) addressing Tobacco, please forward them. I can post them online for everyone's benefit, as I did back in 2004 when the trial courts started ruling on the Prop. 64 retroactivity question. I will probably interrupt my hiatus to do this if I receive copies of orders. Thanks!
Although it does not cite or discuss Tobacco, today's opinion by the Ninth Circuit in Kearns v. Ford Motor Commpany is instructive. The case involved a class action against Ford under the UCL and CLRA based on claims that Ford misrepresented the safety and reliability of its Ford-certified vehicles. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege fraud with specificity under F.R.C.P. 9(b). The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court rejected the argument that specificity in pleading was not required under state law on the ground that federal law governed the pleading standard.
This case suggests that federal courts may not follow the Cal Supreme Court's holding on the second issue in the Tobacco case, that under the UCL, the plaintiff need not allege what he/she relied upon with specificity.
Posted by: Chris from L.A. | Monday, June 08, 2009 at 04:15 PM