Divided California Supreme Court Limits Impact of Proposition 64 on Class Actions Brought Under California's Unfair Competition Law

April 2009
Venulex Legal Summaries;2009 Q2, following p3
The article discusses the divided opinion of the California Supreme Court in In re Tobacco II Litigation, which construes the limitations imposed by the Proposition 64 on the ability of a plaintiff to bring a deceptive advertising class action under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) of the state. The plaintiffs in the case accused tobacco companies of violating the UCL by allegedly engaging in deceptive campaigns. The court concluded that the standing requirement of the Proposition 64 was limited to solely to the lead plaintiff.


Related Articles

  • More suits against law schools likely, but success questionable. DUNNING, MATT // Business Insurance;2/13/2012, Vol. 46 Issue 7, p7 

    The article reports that legal and insurance experts doubt that lawsuits filed against U.S. law schools by more than 70 graduates will make it to trial. Law school graduates filed the lawsuits for alleged misleading job placement statistics. Attorney David Anziska, the conceptual architect of...

  • High Court's Walmart ruling good news for employers.  // HR Specialist: Florida Employment Law;Sep2011, Vol. 6 Issue 9, p1 

    The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that the lawsuit on behalf of 1.5 million female employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a single class-action case which makes it harder for employees to band together in a class-action cases against employers in the U.S.

  • Resolving the Dispute over Injunctive Relief Classes. Feldman, Steven N.; Kenney, Ellen C. // CADS Report;Summer2015, Vol. 25 Issue 4, p5 

    The article discusses the ruling on injunctive relief in class action lawsuits under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Topics covered include the public policy exception among minority courts in California, Kansas and District of Columbia, the venue for plaintiffs such as state courts, the...

  • British Airways: Lost Luggage Class Action.  // Travel Law Quarterly;Jun2009, Vol. 1 Issue 2, p118 

    The article reports on the ruling of U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis regarding the class-action lawsuit filed by the passengers of British Airways PLC (BA). It states that the ruling denied BA's motion to dismiss the consumer class action which seeks to recover travellers' actual losses...

  • Arbiter Does Not Decide Class Arbitration Status. McLeod, Catherine R. // CADS Report;Winter2015, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p23 

    The article discusses the Opalinski v. Robert Half International, Inc. court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that classwide arbitration status should be determined by the court, not by an arbitrator. It notes that the Third Court joined the Sixth Circuit...

  • Eleventh Circuit: Rule 68 Offers of Full Relief to Named Plaintiffs Do Not Moot a Class Action. Rich, Kimberly F. // CADS Report;Winter2015, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p27 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offers of full relief to named plaintiffs do not moot a class action. It notes that in its Stein opinion, the Eleventh Circuit aligned with four other...

  • The golden rules of operating in China.  // Advertising Age;4/23/2012, Vol. 83 Issue 17, p8 

    The article examines advertising and marketing laws and political aspects of those activities in China and their effect on foreign companies. The unpredictability of government reactions to advertising due to the political needs of the Communist Party is stressed, particularly how this can lead...

  • St. Francis, C.R. Bard suit dismissed with prejudice.  // Medical Device Daily;9/30/2009, Vol. 13 Issue 188, p3 

    The article discusses the class action lawsuit St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard Inc., et al, filed at the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri. The case alleges that C. R. Bard conspired to exclude competitors from the urological catheter market. The court dismissed...

  • 2008 Year in Review: Selected Federal Securities Litigation Developments.  // Venulex Legal Summaries;2009 Q1, Special section p1 

    The article summarizes decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeal which analyze claims by private litigants under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. It notes that there are 66 opinions which include...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics