The UCL Practitioner

New class certification opinion: Hefczyc v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego

In Hefczyc v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego, ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Nov. 17, 2017), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification in a declaratory relief action.  The opinion's main holding is that Code of Civil Procedure section 382 does not have an equivalent to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) or (b)(2), the elements of which are less onerous for declaratory or injunctive relief actions than for damages actions.  See slip op. at 11-25. 

As a result, section 382's usual requirements apply to declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages actions alike:

[T]here is no gap in California precedent to be filled by reference to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 23(b)(1)(A) or (b)(2) (28 U.S.C.) on the issue of what class certification standards must be met when a plaintiff seeks only declaratory or injunctive relief on behalf of a class.  Even when the plaintiff seeks solely declaratory or injunctive relief, California case law follows the well-established requirements that our Supreme Court has consistently stated, namely, (as relevant here) that the plaintiff must establish that (1) the class is ascertainable; (2) common questions predominate; and (3) a class action would provide substantial benefits, making it superior to other procedures for resolving the controversy.

Id. at 24-25. 

New opinion confirms UCL and CLRA remedies are cumulative to each other: Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc.

In Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc., ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Nov. 27, 2017), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) held that "an appropriate correction offer under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) does not prevent a consumer from pursuing causes of action for fraud and violation of the UCL based on the same conduct, because the remedies are cumulative."  Slip op. at 2 (footnote omitted). 

UCL insurance opinion: The Traveler's Property Cas. Co. v. Actavis, Inc.

In The Traveler's Property Cas Co. v. Actavis, Inc., ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Nov. 6, 2017), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) considered whether the defendant pharmaceutical companies' CGL insurance policies required the insurers to defend a UCL "public prosecutor" action brought by Santa Clara and Orange Counties.  The complaint alleges that the defendants' opioid marketing campaigns, instituted in the 1990s to "increase sales of opioids and enhance corporate profits," were deceptive, unfair and unlawful.  The Court of Appeal found no duty to defend the action (or a similar action brought by the City of Chicago). 

The complaint in the underlying UCL action is available at this link.