California Supreme Court Holds That Only Individual Representatives in UCL Class Actions Are Required to Satisfy The Standing Requirements of Proposition 64


A sharply divided California Supreme Court ruled on May 18, 2009, that in putative class actions filed under California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”) (Business and Professions Code Section 17200), only the named class representative(s) – not absent class members – must satisfy the standing requirements of Proposition 64, the 2004 ballot initiative that amended the UCL. That is, only the named plaintiff(s) in a class action must show they “suffered injury in fact and ha[ve] lost money or property as a result of” the alleged unfair competition. The Court’s narrow 4-3 majority decision reversed a series of lower court rulings which had held that every class member in a UCL class action must demonstrate Proposition 64 standing.

Please see full newsletter for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Antitrust & Trade Regulation Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Constitutional Law Updates, Consumer Protection Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »