Manatt

advanced search
  • Client Access
  • Careers
  • Diversity
  • People
    Search Our People
    advanced search
    A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
  • Practices
    View by Group View Alphabetically
  • Experience
  • Awards
  • News & Events
  • Offices
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • Home
  • Practices
  • Unfair Competition Litigation
< Back Print Mail
    • Overview
    • Attorneys & Professionals
    • Selected Clients
    • Newsletters
    • Representative Matters

    Contacts

    BRAD W. SEILING

    Partner
    email

    BARRY S. LANDSBERG

    Partner
    email

    Unfair Competition Litigation

    Due to its extremely broad scope, California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.) (UCL) frequently is the weapon of choice for California litigants who sue businesses. The UCL prohibits a broad range of “unlawful,” “unfair” or “fraudulent” business conduct, and although UCL plaintiffs may not obtain damages, they may seek equitable relief—including injunctions and restitution—on behalf of the general public, as well as attorneys’ fees.

    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips is a recognized leader in litigation brought under the UCL. For decades, as UCL litigation has increased, our attorneys have successfully represented UCL defendants, plaintiffs and friends of the court in California’s state and federal trial and appellate courts. We are familiar with over 80 years of UCL case law and legislative history, and have shaped judicial interpretation of the UCL by winning first-impression decisions from the courts of appeal and the California Supreme Court.

    Our special focus on UCL is particularly important because the courts hearing such litigation often have sparse UCL precedent to guide them, and UCL standards are purposefully fluid. In cases from the 1930s to the present, the California Supreme Court has emphasized the broad, “sweeping” scope of the UCL and has encouraged California judges to use their imagination to remedy “schemes” that “frustrate the fundamental rules of honesty and fair dealing.” Even though UCL claims have become ubiquitous, many California judges often don’t know what to make of them. Thus, we are actively working to shape UCL in the courts, and our professionals are recognized for the use of novel theories and defenses to get to the heart of the issues.

    Manatt attorneys are sought after to speak and write on UCL topics. Our articles in legal publications have dealt with such issues as whether the UCL currently provides needed protections to consumers while balancing the burdens and risks it engenders to business, and what direction UCL decisions should take under the present scope of the Unfair Competition Law. Our UCL Practice Group distributes an electronic newsletter that discusses the latest UCL developments.

    We handle all types of UCL disputes, including such diverse areas as entertainment cases, patent infringement, health care regulatory claims, employment litigation, and advertising claims.

     

    Attorneys & Professionals

    Email
    Name
    Office
    Phone
    de Recat, Craig J. Los Angeles 310.312.4319
    Duchesneau, Peter Los Angeles 310.312.4209
    Hahm, Eugene L. Palo Alto 650.812.1377
    Hummel, Chad S. Los Angeles 310.312.4197
    Landsberg, Barry S. Los Angeles 310.312.4259
    Lee, Barry W. San Francisco 415.291.7450
    Maurer, Jeffrey J. Los Angeles 310.312.4132
    Osaki, Keli N. Orange County 714.371.2539
    Peluso, Kimo S. New York 212.790.4570
    Pimstone, Gregory N. Los Angeles 310.312.4133
    Seiling, Brad W. Los Angeles 310.312.4234
    Shatz, Benjamin G. Los Angeles 310.312.4383
    Struve, Andrew H. Los Angeles 310.312.4355
    Wanger, Christopher L. San Francisco 415.291.7410
    Witzling, Adina L. Orange County 714.338.2724
    Yeh, Jack S. Los Angeles 310.312.4367

    Unfair Competition

    Selected Clients

    • CashCall 
    • General Mills 
    • Pacific Capital Bank
    • Ticketmaster 
    • Toshiba America Information Systems

     

    Newsletters

    05/19/2009California Supreme Court Holds That Only Individual Representatives in UCL Class Actions Are Required to Satisfy The Standing Requirements of Proposition 64 Chad S. HummelEugene L. Hahm A sharply divided California Supreme Court ruled on May 18, 2009, that in
    03/10/2009Locked Out: Plaintiffs Alleging Unfair Competition Claim Relating to “False Origin” of Locksets Failed to Adequately Allege Requisite Economic Injury
    01/14/2008California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal Applies the ''Injury in Fact'' and ''Causation/Reliance'' Elements of the UCL Standing Requirement to Uphold Dismissal of UCL Claim at Pleadings Stage
    08/06/2007Court May Properly Abstain From and Dismiss UCL Action Seeking to Enforce Regulatory Statute Court of Appeal
    07/24/2006California Supreme Court Holds That Proposition 64’s Elimination of UCL Standing for Uninjured Plaintiffs Applies to Pending Cases
    07/18/2006California’s Second District Court of Appeal Rules that Proposition 64 Requires All Class Members in Private Unfair Competition and False Advertising Actions to Have Suffered Actual Injury and Relied on the Defendant’s Conduct
    04/07/2006California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal Joins the Second and Third Districts in Holding that Nonrestitutionary Disgorgement Is Not an Available Remedy Under the UCL, Even in Certified Class Action Cases
    03/24/2006Appellate Court Urges Clarification Of UCL’s Definition Of “Unfair” In Consumer Cases
    03/15/2006New FDA Prescription Drug Labeling Rule Is Expected to Preempt California’s Unfair Competition Law Actions Based on Drug Labels
    02/21/2006California's Court of Appeal Holds Class Action Waiver and Forum Selection Clauses Invalid in Consumer Class Actions
    02/17/2006Federal Account Disclosure Regulations Held Not To Preempt California's Unfair Competition Law
    01/10/2006Advertisements Which Are Not Misleading To A Reasonable Consumer Are Not Actionable, Per California’s Court of Appeal
    12/13/2005$1.7M Judgment Upheld Against Lawyer For Shakedown UCL Lawsuits
    12/06/2005Orders Denying Leave to Amend to Add Claims Are Not Appealable
    06/06/2005Failure To Follow Proposition 65’s Pre-Suit Notice Requirements Bars Derivative UCL Claim, Holds Court of Appeal
    02/15/2005Court of Appeal Districts Issue Conflicting Opinions on Applying Proposition 64 to Pending Lawsuits
    12/10/2004A Divided California Supreme Court Reaffirms the Availability of Attorneys’ Fees Awards Under the Catalyst Theory
    10/12/2004"Niggling Statutory Violations" Do Not Support an Award of Attorneys' Fees in Successful Suit Under the UCL In a case that presented a "textbook example of valueless litigation against a private party 'under the guise of benefiting the public interest,'" the California Court
    10/01/2004UCL Plaintiffs Prevented From Recovering Backpay in a UCL Class Action
    07/02/2004Initiative to Reform the UCL Qualifies for November 2004 Ballot
    03/12/2004The UCL Does Not Apply to Securities Transactions, Holds California’s Court of Appeal
    03/05/2004UCL Plaintiffs Prevented from Seeking Non-restitutionary Disgorgement of Profits Under the Guise of A Class Action
    03/01/2004Fourth District Court of Appeal Declares “Patently Frivolous” Appeal of Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion by Attorney Accused of Section 17200 Lawsuit Abuse
    02/12/2004Statements of Opinion Are Pure Speech and Cannot Violate California’s Unfair Competition or False Advertising Laws
    12/19/2003Advertisements Akin To “Puffing” Not Actionable Under California’s False Advertising Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act Or Unfair Competition Law
    09/16/2003Conduct Expressly Permitted By California's Knox-Keene Act Cannot Be Unfair Within The Meaning Of The UCL, Says Court Of Appeal, Nor Can A UCL Claim Be Stated Absent Allegations Of Harm
    08/25/2003California Trial Court Throws Out Lawsuit Challenging Wholesale Lender Payments to Mortgage Brokers
    07/18/2003Alleged Car Dealer Commissions From Financing Companies Not Violative Of Unfair Competition Law
    06/17/2003Forum Selection Clauses Bind Uninjured “Private Attorneys General” In UCL Cases Just As They Would Bind An “Affected” UCL Plaintiff
    06/12/2003Unfair Competition Safe Harbor Prevents Liability for California Hospitals’ Past Assertion Of Liens
    05/29/2003California Court Narrows Scope Of Actionable 'Unfair' Practices For UCL Claims
    05/27/2003State Bar Court Suspends Three Attorneys Accused Of Using The UCL To Extort Settlements From Small Businesses; California Legislature To Consider Expanding Relief Available Under UCL
    04/28/2003Supreme Court Rules That UCL Claims For Injunctive Relief Are Exempt From Contractual Arbitration, Whereas UCL Claims For Restitution Must Be Arbitrated
    04/08/2003Class Certification in UCL Actions is not Proper when the Named Plaintiffs have not been Personally Harmed.
    03/18/2003UCL Claims May be Dismissed when the Violations Alleged are De Minimis and the Remedies Sought are Disproportionate to the Harm Alleged.
    03/10/2003California Supreme Court to Review Criteria for Attorneys’ Fees Awards in UCL Cases
    03/05/2003Disgorgement of Profits is Not a Proper Remedy in an Unfair Competition Law Case
    03/04/2003California High Court Poised to Decide When--If Ever--17200 Claims Are Arbitrable
    02/07/2003UCL Claim Held Preempted by Federal Lending Regulations
    02/05/2003Unfair Competition Law

    Unfair Competition Litigation

    Representative Matters

    • Figueroa v Northridge Hospital Medical Center etal,  __ Cal. App. 4th __, 2005 WL 2671315 (2d Dist. Nov.16, 2005) First impression decision, dismissing appeal of proposed class action complaint against client hospital system, alleging violations of the Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law.
    • Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798 (2003) Affirming dismissal of Business & Professions Code Section17200 lawsuit against hospitals for enforcing liens in personalinjury actions by former Medi-Cal-insured hospital patients.
    • Swanson v. St. John's Regional Medical Center, 97 Cal.App. 4th 245 (2002) Upholding hospitals' third-party lien rights, and affirming dismissal of UCL claim against California's largest acute care hospital system.
    • Congress of California Seniors v. Catholic Healthcare West, 87 Cal. App. 4th 491 (2nd Dist. 2001) Holding that Medicare and Medicaid laws preempt Unfair Competition Law action by union claiming that hospital submitted false Medicare and Medi-Cal cost reports.
    • Crusader Insurance Co. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 54Cal. App. 4th 121 (1997) Affirming dismissal of action against client insurer on grounds that plaintiff stated no private right of action, including under  Section 17200, to sue for violations of California's Insurance Code.

     

  • Related Practices

    • Antitrust
    • Class Actions
    • Financial Services Litigation
    • Healthcare Litigation
  • Subscribe to our Newsletters
    Stay Connected:
    Follow us on LinkedIn Follow us via RSS Feed
ManattJones Global Strategies, LLCManatt Business SelectManatt Health SolutionsManatt Digital Media
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York DR 2-101(f) Contact | Sitemap | Disclaimer                                                                                                              

© 2013 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. All rights reserved.