Review petition in Rose v. Bank of America
Here are the review petition and other documents from Rose v. Bank of America, no. S199074, in which the Supreme Court granted review on March 14, 2012:
- Petition for review (filed 12/30/11)
- Answer to petition for review (filed 01/20/12)
- Reply in support of petition for review (filed 01/31/12)
- Amicus letter of AG's office in support of petition for review (dated 01/31/12)
I have not seen the answer to the petition for review. If you have a copy, please forward it and I will add it to the list above. [UPDATE: Many thanks to the blog reader who provided a copy of the answer to the petition for review. ]
The AG's letter is interesting. According to the letter (at p. 4), the Court of Appeal in Rose held that a UCL "unlawful" prong claim may not be "predicated on violations of federal laws where Congress did not provide a private right of action." I did not read the Rose opinion quite so broadly, but if this is what it held, that is certainly inconsistent with California Supreme Court precedents. The letter makes a series of excellent arguments in support of review.
Here is the docket's statement of the issue on review in Rose:
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?