Who is the best California labor law attorney

Plaintiff insureds sued defendant insurance companies, alleging violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, in connection with the marketing and sale of universal life insurance policies. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, concluded that the insurance companies did not use a common marketing strategy and therefore denied the insureds' motion for class certification. The insureds appealed.

 

Overview: Who is the best California labor law attorney?

 

The court of appeal held that because the trial court determined, based on substantial evidence, that the companies' alleged misrepresentations of permanence were not commonly made to members of the class, the denial of class certification had to be upheld. The companies' evidence contradicted the argument that there was, in fact, a common marketing scheme generated from their headquarters, and the trial court found that evidence persuasive. In the absence of a common marketing scheme, the class action failed. The court also held that the language in the policies themselves did not support class certification, even though it was amenable to common proof, because the insureds did not seek class certification on the basis that the policy language standing alone was misleading and because it was impossible to consider the language of the policies without considering the information conveyed by the companies' agents in the process of selling the policies. The court also noted that the issue of materiality was also not subject to common proof.

 

 

 

The court affirmed the order denying class certification and remanded the matter for further proceedings, with the insurance companies to recover, from the insureds' counsel, reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with the preparation of a respondents' appendix that was made necessary by omissions in the appellants' appendix.

 

 

 

Plaintiff consumer appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which denied his motion for class certification on his claims against defendant, a consumer credit reporting agency, under California's unfair competition law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., violation of privacy rights, and unjust enrichment.

 

 

 

The consumer alleged that the agency unlawfully misappropriated, disclosed, and sold confidential information of the consumer and others to third parties for profit. The court held that Proposition 64 repealed rights wholly dependent on statute and without a saving clause. The pre-Proposition 64 right under the UCL to bring representative actions absent injury in fact and regardless of whether class certification requirements were satisfied was wholly dependent on statute. The trial court thus relied on a legal assumption that was no longer correct, that the consumer could pursue the unfair competition claims on a representative basis without meeting the class certification requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382. On the remaining claims, the trial court properly considered the amount of nominal damages potentially recoverable, among other factors, in concluding that such damages would not confer a substantial benefit on individual class members. The trial court did not err by concluding that the determination of damages on the privacy claims and the amount of unjust enrichment would overwhelm the court with individual inquiries and that common issues did not predominate.

 

 

 

The court reversed the order denying certification of a class action as to the unfair competition claims only. With respect to the unfair competition claims, the court remanded to the trial court for a further hearing on the motion for class certification. The court otherwise affirmed the order denying certification of a class action.