In Kearns v. Ford Motor Company, — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 1578535 (9th Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied the heighted pleading standing of FRCP 9(b) for CLRA and UCL claims, rather than the looser state law pleading standard for causes of action arising under such statutes, even if the case arose from one removed from state court.   The Court of Appeals explained:


The CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale … of goods or services to any consumer.”Cal. Civ.Code § 1770. The UCL pro-hibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s]” and “unfair, deceptive, untrue or mis-leading advertising.”Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200. Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement applies to these state-law causes of action. Vess, 317 F.3d at 1102-05. In fact, we have specifically ruled that Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards apply to claims for violations of the CLRA and UCL. Id.