Pending Supreme Court Cases(updated 08/17/13)

The following cases now pending before the California Supreme Court raise issues of interest relating to the UCL, the CLRA, and/or class actions (listed in reverse chronological order by date of review grant): 

Vasquez v. Greene Motors, No. S210439 (review granted 06/26/13)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119, which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc., 214 Cal.App.4th 1172 (2013)

Compton v. Superior Court, No. 210261 (review granted 06/12/13)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119, which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
• Court of Appeal Opinion:  Compton v. Superior Court, 214 Cal.App.4th 873 (2013)

Natalini v. Import Motors, No. S209324 (review granted 05/01/13)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119, which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
• Court of Appeal Opinion:Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc., 213 Cal.App.4th 587 (2013) 

Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, No. S208716 (review granted 04/10/13)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032, which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, LLC, 212 Cal.App.4th 895 (2013)
  

Franco v. Arakelian Enters., No. S207760 (review granted 02/13/13)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032, which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
• Court of Appeal Opinion:  Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., 211 Cal.App.4th 314 (2012)

Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, No. S206874 (review granted 01/30/13)

• Issue: This case presents questions concerning the determination of whether common issues predominate in a proposed class action relating to claims that turn on whether members of the putative class are independent contractors or employees.
• Court of Appeal Opinion:  Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 210 Cal.App.4th 77 (2012)

Henderson v. Farmers Group, No. S207068 (review granted 01/16/13)

• Issues: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Zhang v. Superior Court, S178542, which presents the following issues: (1) Can an insured bring a cause of action against its insurer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on allegations that the insurer misrepresents and falsely advertises that it will promptly and properly pay covered claims when it has no intention of doing so? (2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 bar such an action?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Henderson v. Farmers Group, Inc., 210 Cal.App.4th 459 (2012)

Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, No. S206153 (review granted 12/19/12)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119, which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
• Court of Appeal Opinion:  Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc., 209 Cal.App.4th 325 (2012)

Reyes v. Liberman Broadcasting, No. S205907 (review granted 12/12/12)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032, which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Reyes v. Liberman Broadcasting, Inc., 208 Cal.App.4th 1537 (2012)

Caron v. Mercedes-Benz Fin. Servs. USA, No. S205263 (review granted 10/24/12)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032, which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Caron v. Mercedes-Benz Fin. Servs. USA LLC, 208 Cal.App.4th 7 (2012)

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, No. S204032 (review granted 09/19/12)

• Issues: (1) Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights? (2) Does the high court's decision permit arbitration agreements to override the statutory right to bring representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.)? (3) Did defendant waive its right to compel arbitration?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 206 Cal.App.4th 949 (2012)

Mayers v. Volt Management, No. S200709 (review granted 06/13/12)

• Issues: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119, which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
• Court of Appeal Opinion:  Mayers v. Volt Management Corp., 203 Cal.App.4th 1194 (2012)

Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association, no. S200923 (review granted 05/16/12)

• Issue: This case presents issues concerning the certification of class actions in wage and hour misclassification litigation and the use of representative testimony and statistical evidence at trial of such a class action.
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Duran v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n., 203 Cal.App.4th 212 (2012)

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., no. S199119 (review granted 03/21/12)

• Issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, 201 Cal.App.4th 74 (2011)

In re Cipro Cases I & II, no. S198616 (review granted 02/15/12)

• Issue: May a suit under the Cartwright Antitrust Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720 et seq.) be brought to challenge "reverse exclusionary payments" made by pharmaceutical manufacturers to settle patent litigation with generic drug producers and prolong the life of the patents in question? 
• Court of Appeal Opinion: In re Cipro Cases I & II, 200 Cal.App.4th 442 (2011)

Hughes v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., no. S195069 (review granted 09/28/11)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Zhang v. Superior Court, S178542, which presents the following issues: (1) Can an insured bring a cause of action against its insurer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on allegations that the insurer misrepresents and falsely advertises that it will promptly and properly pay covered claims when it has no intention of doing so? (2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 bar such an action?
• Court of Appeal Opinion:  Hughes v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 196 Cal.App.4th 754 (2011)

People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., no. S194388 (review granted 08/10/11)

• Issue: Is an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that is based on a trucking company's alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws "related to the price, route, or service" of the company and, therefore, preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 14501)?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., 195 Cal.App.4th 765 (May 18, 2011)

Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, no. S174475 (review granted 09/09/09)

• Issues:  (1) Can a mandatory employment arbitration agreement be enforced prior to the conclusion of an administrative proceeding conducted by the Labor Commissioner concerning an employee's statutory wage claim? (2) Was the Labor Commissioner's jurisdiction over employee's statutory wage claim divested by the Federal Arbitration Act under Preston v. Ferrer (2008) __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169 L.Ed.2d 917?
• Supreme Court Opinion:  Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moren0, 59 Cal.4th  (Feb. 24, 2011), vacated 10/31/11.
• U.S. Supreme Court Order (10/31/11):  The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. ___ (Apr. 27, 2011).
• Supreme Court Order (01/11/12): In light of the United States Supreme Court's order vacating our judgment in the above-entitled case and remanding the cause to this court "for further consideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC. v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __ (2011) [131 S.Ct. 1740]," the parties are requested to brief the significance of that case. The parties are requested to file and serve simultaneous briefs by February 10, 2012, and may file and serve reply briefs by February 24, 2012.
• Supreme Court Order (06/21/13): The parties are requested to serve and file supplemental briefs addressing the significance, if any, of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant (June 20, 2013) ___ U.S. ___ [2013 WL 3064410]. Those briefs are to be served and filed on or before July 12, 2013. Upon the filing of those briefs, each party will then have until July 19, 2013, to serve and file a response to the brief submitted by the opposing party. Submission of the cause is vacated. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524(h)(1) [submission runs from expiration of the time in which to file briefs, including supplemental briefs].) The cause will be resubmitted on July 19, 2013.

 

CONCLUDED CASES

Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers New World Life Ins. Co.), no. S157001 (review granted 11/14/07)

• Issue: Is insurance a "good" or a "service" that is subject to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750)?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Fairbanks v. Superior Court, 154 Cal.App.4th 435 (2007)
• Briefs: Some of the briefs are collected at these links.

Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy), no. S155965 (review granted 10/10/07)

• Issues: (1) Must an employee who is suing an employer for labor law violations on behalf of himself and others under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203) bring his representative claims as a class action? (2) Must an employee who is pursuing such claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2699) bring them as a class action?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Arias v. Superior Court, 153 Cal.App.4th 777 (2007)

Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, no. S153846 (review granted 08/16/07)

• Issues: (1) Has a person suffered "damage" within the meaning of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code, section 1780, subd. (a)), such as to allow that person to bring an action under the Act if that person is a party to an agreement containing an unconscionable term (see Civil Code, section 1770, subd. (a)(19)), even though no effort has been made to enforce the unconscionable term? (2) Did plaintiffs have standing to seek declaratory relief?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 150 Cal.App.4th 1136 (2007)
• Briefs: Some of the briefs are collected at this link.

Amalgamated Transit Union v. Superior Court (First Transit) , no. S151615 (review granted 06/20/07)

• Issues: (1) Does a worker's assignment to the worker's union of a cause of action for meal and rest period violations carry with it the worker's right to sue in a representative capacity under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) or the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)? (2) Does Business and Professions Code section 17203, as amended by Proposition 64, which provides that representative claims may be brought only if the injured claimant "complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure," require that private representative claims meet the procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.4th 39 (2007)

Miller v. Bank of America, no. S149178 (review granted 03/21/07)

• Issues: Does California law, which provides that a bank account into which public benefit funds or Social Security payments have been electronically deposited is exempt from attachment and execution, prohibit a bank from exercising its right to setoff as to charges - such as overdraft fees and insufficient fund fees - arising out of use of that same account?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Miller v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 144 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2006)

In re Tobacco II Cases, no. S147345 (review granted 11/1/06)

• Issues: (1) In order to bring a class action under Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), as amended by Proposition 64 (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)), must every member of the proposed class have suffered "injury in fact," or is it sufficient that the class representative comply with that requirement? (2) In a class action based on a manufacturer's alleged misrepresentation of a product, must every member of the class have actually relied on the manufacturer's representations?
• Court of Appeal opinion: In re Tobacco II Cases, 142 Cal.App.4th 891 (2006) (Fourth Appellate District, Division One)
• Briefs: Some of the briefs are collected at these links

McAdams v. Monier, no. S154088 (review granted 09/19/07)

• Issues: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in In re Tobacco Cases II (S147345), which includes the following issues: (1) In order to bring a class action under Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), as amended by Proposition 64 (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)), must every member of the proposed class have suffered "injury in fact," or is it sufficient that the class representative comply with that requirement? (2) In a class action based on a manufacturer's alleged misrepresentation of a product, must every member of the class have actually relied on the manufacturer's representations?
• Court of Appeal opinion: McAdams v. Monier, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 667 (2007)

Pfizer v. Superior Court (Galfano), no. S145775 (review granted 11/1/06)

• Issues: Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in In re Tobacco II cases, S147345 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 282(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.
• Court of Appeal opinion: Pfizer v. Superior Court (Galfano), 141 Cal.App.4th 290 (2006)

Clark v. Superior Court (Nat'l Western Life Ins.), no. S174229 (review granted 09/09/09)

• Issue: Is Civil Code section 3345, which permits an enhanced award of up to three times the amount of a fine, civil penalty, or "any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter" in actions brought by or on behalf of senior citizens or disabled persons seeking to "redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition," applicable in an action brought by senior citizens seeking restitution under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, section 17200 et seq.)?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Clark v. Superior Court (Nat'l Western Life Ins. Co.), 174 Cal.App.4th 82 (May 21, 2009)

Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., no. S166435 (review granted 11/19/08)

• Issues: (1) When plaintiffs pay overcharges on goods or services as a result of the anticompetitive conduct of defendant sellers but recover the overcharges through increased prices at which the goods or services are sold to end users, may defendants assert a "pass-on" defense and argue that plaintiffs were not injured because they did not suffer financial loss as a result of the anticompetitive conduct? (2) Is restitution available under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.) to plaintiffs who recovered from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants? (3) When plaintiffs recover from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants, have they suffered actual injury and lost money or property for purposes of establishing standing under the Unfair Competition Law, as amended by Proposition 64?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 209 (2008)

Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore, no. S164174 (review granted 07/30/08)

• Issues: (1) Which party bears the burden of persuasion with respect to the applicability of the anti-SLAPP exemptions set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c)? (2) Does Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c), exempt from anti-SLAPP protection an advertisement by a lawyer soliciting clients for a contemplated lawsuit?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Sampson v. Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore, 162 Cal.App.4th 737 (Apr. 30, 2008)

County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield Co.), no. S163681 (review granted 07/23/08)

• Issue: May a public entity retain private counsel to prosecute a public nuisance abatement action under a contingent fee agreement?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield Co.), 161 Cal.App.4th 1140 (2008)
• Briefs: Some of the briefs are collected at this link

O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg., no. S163207 (review granted 07/09/08)

• Issue: Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in In re Tobacco II Cases, S147345, and Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, LP, S153846 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.
• Court of Appeal Opinion: O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Manufacturing, Inc., 161 Cal.App.4th 388 (2008)

Reid v. Google, no. S158965 (review granted 01/30/08)

• Issues: (1) Should California law recognize the "stray remarks" doctrine, which permits the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment to disregard isolated discriminatory remarks or comments unrelated to the decision-making process as insufficient to establish discrimination? (2) Are evidentiary objections not expressly ruled on at the time of decision on a summary judgment motion preserved for appeal?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Reid v. Google, Inc., 155 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Oct. 4, 2007)

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, no. S171845 (review granted 06/10/09)

• Issue: Does a plaintiff's allegation that he purchased a product in reliance on the product label's misrepresentation about a characteristic of the product satisfy the requirement for standing under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, section 17200 et seq.) that the plaintiff allege a loss of money or property, or is such a plaintiff unable to allege the required loss of money or property because he obtained the benefit of his bargain by receiving the product in exchange for the payment?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (Benson), 171 Cal.App.4th 645 (2009)
• Briefs: Some of the briefs are collected at this link.
• Oral Argument:  Scheduled for November 3, 2010, 9:00 a.m.

Pineda v. Bank of America, no. S170758 (review granted 04/22/09)

• Issues:  (1) .... (2) Can penalties under Labor Code section 203 be recovered as restitution in an Unfair Competition Law action (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203)?
• Court of Appeal Opinion:  Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 170 Cal.App.4th 388 (2009)
• Briefs: Some of the briefs are collected at this link.
• Oral Argument:  Argued October 5, 2010, 1:30 p.m.

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., no. S170577 (questions accepted 04/22/09)

• Issues: (1) First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week? (2) Second, does § 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one? (3) Third, does § 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?
• Ninth Circuit Opinion:  Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008) (withdrawn)

Baycol Cases I and II, no. S178320 (review granted 02/18/10)

• Issue: Did the "death knell doctrine" require plaintiff to immediately appeal the sustaining of a demurer as to class claims when the ruling resolved both individual and class claims, or did the one final judgment rule apply and require a single appeal from the subsequent entry of final judgment on all claims?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Baycol Cases I and II (unpublished) (Oct. 20, 2009)

Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mut. Ins.), no. S156555 (review granted 11/28/07)

• Issue: Do claims adjusters employed by insurance companies fall within the administrative exemption (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 11040) to the requirement that employees are entitled to overtime compensation?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Harris v. Superior Court, 154 Cal.App.4th 164 (2007)

Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering, no. S183372 (review granted 08/18/10)

• Issue: Is plaintiff eligible for an award of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine based on a successful challenge to a court reporter's service charges that established legal precedent?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., 184 Cal.App.4th 178 (Apr. 28, 2010)

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), no. S166350 (review granted 10/22/08)

• Issues: "This case presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California's statutes and regulations governing an employer's duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers." The case also raises issues concerning class certification of meal and rest break claims.
• Court of Appeal Opinion:Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), 165 Cal.App.4th 25 (2008)
• Briefs:http://www.uclpractitioner.com/Brinker.html

Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., no. S184929 (review granted 10/20/10)

• Issues: (1) May the continuing violation doctrine, under which a defendant may be held liable for actions that take place outside the limitations period if those actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct within the limitations period, be asserted in an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)? (2) May the continuous accrual doctrine, under which each violation of a periodic obligation or duty is deemed to give rise to a separate cause of action that accrues at the time of the individual wrong, be asserted in such an action? (3) May the delayed discovery rule, under which a cause of action does not accrue until a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position has actual or constructive knowledge of facts giving rise to a claim, be asserted in such an action?
• Court of Appeal Opinion:Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., 185 Cal.App.4th 1159 (2010)

People v. E*Poly Star, No. S203477 (review granted 08/15/12)

• Issue: The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., S184929, which presents the following issues: (1) May the continuing violation doctrine, under which a defendant may be held liable for actions that take place outside the limitations period if those actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct within the limitations period, be asserted in an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)? (2) May the continuous accrual doctrine, under which each violation of a periodic obligation or duty is deemed to give rise to a separate cause of action that accrues at the time of the individual wrong, be asserted in such an action? (3) May the delayed discovery rule, under which a cause of action does not accrue until a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position has actual or constructive knowledge of facts giving rise to a claim, be asserted in such an action?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: People v. E*Poly Star, Inc., 205 Cal.App.4th 1316 (2012)

Rose v. Bank of America, no. S199074 (review granted 03/14/12)

• Issue: 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?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Rose v. Bank of America, N.A., 200 Cal.App.4th 1441 (2011)

Zhang v. Superior Court (Cal. Cap. Ins.), no. S178542 (review granted 02/10/10)

• Issues: (1) Can an insured bring a cause of action against its insurer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on allegations that the insurer misrepresents and falsely advertises that it will promptly and properly pay covered claims when it has no intention of doing so? (2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 bar such an action?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Zhang v. Superior Court (Cal. Cap. Ins. Co.), 178 Cal.App.4th 1081 (Oct. 29, 2009)