California Auto Finance Law

A Blog for the California Auto Finance Industry by Scott J. Hyman of Severson & Werson

Home

About Me

About This Blog

About My Categories

Contact Me

Log Out

Admin

Recent Posts

District Court (Cal.) Quickly Disposes of Argument that Loan Servicer is a “Debt Collector” under the FDCPA
District Court (Miss.) Requires FDCPA Plaintiff to Plead Each Element of FDCPA Definition of “Debt Collector”
District Court (Cal.) Allows Debt Collector’s Counter-Claim for Debtor’s Surreptitious Recording of Telephone Calls
Severson & Werson Publish Article on the Applicability of the Litigation Privilege to Rosenthal Act Claims
Administration Economists Evaluating Direct Automobile Sales by Manufacturers
FTC Workshop Recommends FDCPA Revisions; Announces Follow-up Roundtable August 5-6, 2009
District Court (Tn) Refuses to Order Defense Counsel to Attend FDCPA Classes At Nashville School of Law
Car Buyers Protection Act of 2009 (SB 95) Passes Appropriations Committee
SBA to Expand Eligibility for Auto, RV, and Boat Floor Plan Loans
Seventh Circuit Joins Other Circuits’ Holdings that Vehicles Seized Pre-Petition Must Be Immediately Returned

Categories

Select Category

Arbitration

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Auto Finance News

Bankruptcy

Cal Legislation

CCRAA — Civil Code § 1785.25

CLRA — Civil Code § 1770

Damages

FCRA — 15 U.S.C. § 1681

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)

Disputed Accounts

Furnisher Reinvestigation

Notice of Dispute

FCRA Damages

Injunctive Relief

Pre-emption

FDCPA (Fed & State)

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.10A

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.10C

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.13

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.16

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.16A

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.18

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.1A

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.1B

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.20

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.21

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.22

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.22A

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.22B

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.22C

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.23

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.23A

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.24A

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.25

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.26

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.27

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.30A

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.30B

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.31

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.31A

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.32

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.33

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.34

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.4

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.5

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.6

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.7

CEB Prac. Guide § 2.8

Fed. Legislation

Foreign Lang. Trans. — Civil Code § 1632

FTC Holder Rule –16 C.F.R. § 433.2(a)

Identity Theft

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

TCPA

TILA — 15 U.S.C. § 1601

UCC

UCL — Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

Uncategorized

Vehicle Leasing Act

Archives

Select Month

June 2009

May 2009

April 2009

March 2009

February 2009

January 2009

December 2008

November 2008

October 2008

September 2008

August 2008

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

Cal. Supremes Explain post-Prop. 64 Class Standing Requirements in Tobacco II

Posted by by Scott Hyman on May 18, 2009

The California Supreme Court issued a landmark B&P Code 17200 case today in In re: Tobacco II Cases.  How these rules affect auto finance class actions remains to be seen.  The holding of the decision was as follows:

On review, we address two questions:  First, who in a UCL class action must comply with Proposition 64’s standing requirements, the class representatives or all unnamed class members, in order fro the class action to proceed?  We conclude that standing requirements are applicable only to the class representatives, and not all absent class members.  Second, what is the causation requirement for purposes of establishing standing under the UCL, and in particular, what is the meaning of the phrase “as a result of” in section 17204?  We conclude that a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as the basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions.  Those same principles, however, do not require the class representative to plead or prove an unrealistic degree of specificity that the plaintiff relied on particular advertisements or statements when the unfair practice is a fraudulent advertising campaign.  Accordingly, we reverse the order of decertification to the extent it was based upon the conclusion that all class members were required to demonstrate Proposition 64 standing, and remand for further proceedings regarding whether the class representatives in this case have, or can demonstrate, standing.

A copy of the decision can be found here

Tags: UCL -- Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

0 responses so far ↓

There are no comments yet. To submit a comment, fill out the form below.

Leave a Comment

Logged in as Scott Hyman. Logout »

Affiliations

Severson & Werson

Articles and Publications

Hyman & Whitehair, Does the Litigation Privilege Protect against Suits filed under California’s Rosenthal FDCPA? 13 Con. Fin. Serv. L. Rep. 3 (May 27, 2009)
Hyman, “Can the Law Be That Unclear? 9th Circuit and California Courts Reach Opposite Conclusions on FCRA Pre-Emption of CCRAA, 12 Cons. Fin. Serv. L. Rep. 5 (March 4, 2009)
Hyman, Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts in Debt Collection, Ch. 2 (Cal. Cont. Edu. 2008) (Annually since 1998).
Hyman, “California’s Unfair Competition Law Does Not Confer Enhanced Remedies for Unfair Debt Collection Practices”, 8 Cons. Fin. Serv. L. Rep. (2005)).

Conferences and Speeches

“Current Developments in Automobile Finance” — CFSA Annual Convention, Four Seasons Aviara, September 13, 2008
“Mortgage and Auto Finance Class Actions”, Conference on Consumer Finance, Dallas, Texas, October 9-10, 2008
Pretexting: By Any Other Name is Still . . . ?  A lively exploration of the business world’s newest verb, San Francisco Bank Attorneys Association, November 6, 2006

Industry Trade Groups

ACA International
American Financial Services Association
California Bankers’ Association
California Creditors Bar Association
California Financial Services Association

The contents of this blog are published for educational and informational purposes only. The information contained in this blog is general in nature, does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such, nor is it an offer to represent you or intended to create an attorney-client relationship. We specifically disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based upon any and all contents of this blog. This blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. There is no warranty, claim, promise, or guarantee about the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, relevance, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this blog, or of any of the documents or links posted on it.

© 2008-09 California Auto Finance Law.
All rights reserved.