Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
G061836
|
Hagey v. Solar Service Experts
Bills sent to homeowner were an attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt for purposes of the Rosenthal Act despite homeowner not actually owing any debt. |
Consumer Law |
|
T. Delaney | Aug. 31, 2023 |
22-15377
|
Nacarino v. Kashi Co.
Consumer claims based on allegedly misleading food labels were preempted where sustaining them would have established a requirement for food labeling that differed from federal requirements. |
Consumer Law |
|
M. Christen | Aug. 15, 2023 |
22-55517
|
Trim v. Reward Zone USA LLC
Because text messages sent to consumer's cellular telephone were not "voice" messages, the texts did not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. |
Consumer Law |
|
N. Smith | Aug. 9, 2023 |
22-35244
|
Osure Brown v. Transworld Systems, Inc. et al
To plausibly allege that a litigation act violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the debtor must aver facts showing that the collector's act is a new violation. |
Consumer Law |
|
R. Paez | Jul. 17, 2023 |
22-16216
|
Hall v. Smosh DOT Com, Inc.
The owner and subscriber of a phone with a number listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry has standing to bring a Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim, if if they were not the call recipient. |
Consumer Law |
|
R. Bennett | Jul. 3, 2023 |
D079940
|
Rheinhart v. Nissan North America
Car manufacturer required to show more in order to allow its settlement release with aggrieved purchaser survive the Song-Beverly Act's anti-waiver policy. |
Consumer Law |
|
T. O'Rourke | Jun. 29, 2023 |
B318325
|
Minser v. Collect Access, LLC
Debt collector violated the Rosenthal Act where it attempted to collect a judgment without taking reasonable efforts that would have revealed the debtor had not received service of process. |
Consumer Law |
|
G. Weingart | Jun. 23, 2023 |
22-15352
|
Aargon Agency Inc. v. O'Laughlin
Denial of temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was appropriate where debt collectors failed to establish their facial challenge to Nevada S.B. 248 was likely to succeed on the merits. |
Consumer Law |
|
W. Fletcher | Jun. 16, 2023 |
22-15080
|
McGinity v. The Procter & Gamble Co.
Reasonable consumer would not have been deceived by ambiguous front label on products where the back labels both clarified the front label's meaning and provided an ingredients list. |
Consumer Law |
|
R. Gould | Jun. 12, 2023 |
F083197
|
Modification: Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.
Emergency room patient's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim war properly pleaded since he adequately alleged that medical center failed to provide material information about its evaluation and management services fee. |
Consumer Law |
|
D. Franson | May 17, 2023 |
21-56031
|
Hollins v. Walmart, Inc.
Because consumer's state mislabeling claims against Walmart's dietary supplement were inconsistent with federal labeling requirements, consumer's claims were preempted. |
Consumer Law |
|
S. Ikuta | May 12, 2023 |
A161843
|
Young v. Midland Funding LLC
Under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a consumer needed only to make a prima facie showing that the debt collectors made a false representation and need not show that it was made knowingly. |
Consumer Law |
|
J. Streeter | May 5, 2023 |
F083197
|
Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.
Emergency room patient's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim war properly pleaded since he adequately alleged that medical center failed to provide material information about its evaluation and management services fee. |
Consumer Law |
|
D. Franson | May 2, 2023 |
21-16806
|
Pardini v. Unilever United States Inc.
Food Drug and Cosmetic Act preempted plaintiffs' challenge to "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Spray" serving sizes that were compliant with FDA requirements. |
Consumer Law |
|
D. Bress | Apr. 19, 2023 |
A163240
|
Bernuy v. Bridge Property Management Co.
Property management company did not justifiably rely on settled law where there was an extant disagreement between the Courts of Appeal about the constitutionality of a consumer protection measure. |
Consumer Law |
|
C. Fujisaki | Apr. 3, 2023 |
A163682
|
Center for Environmental Health v. Perrigo Co.
Generic drug manufacturers could not give Proposition 65 warnings without violating the federal duty of sameness because public advertising containing such warnings would qualify as "labeling" under Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. |
Consumer Law |
|
J. Humes | Mar. 13, 2023 |
C091902
|
Modification: Williams v. FCA US LLC
Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act's restitution provision, the actual price paid for a defective truck was the cost buyers paid in total in order to obtain the vehicle at the time they purchased it, exclusive of any trade-in value. |
Consumer Law |
|
R. Robie | Mar. 1, 2023 |
C091902
|
Williams v. FCA US LLC
Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act's restitution provision, the actual price paid for a defective truck was the cost buyers paid in total in order to obtain the vehicle at the time they purchased it, exclusive of any trade-in value. |
Consumer Law |
|
R. Robie | Feb. 3, 2023 |
G061122
|
Kemp v. Superior Court
Consumer's state law claim for investigative agency's violation of prohibition against reporting a conviction that predates a report by more than seven years was not expressly preempted by federal law. |
Consumer Law |
|
E. Moore | Dec. 27, 2022 |
21-16785
|
Brickman v. Meta Platforms Inc.
There was no violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act where autodialer did not generate the telephone numbers that were dialed. |
Consumer Law |
|
R. Gilman | Dec. 22, 2022 |
21-55525
|
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Aria
Advising prospective college students on financial aid was offering financial services to consumers such that the person providing the advice was covered by the Consumer Financial Protection Act. |
Consumer Law |
|
R. Tallman | Dec. 14, 2022 |
A164199
|
Beasley v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc.
Candy company's alleged use of partially hydrogenated oils in its products between 2010 and 2016 did not violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's prohibition on adulterated food. |
Consumer Law |
|
J. Streeter | Dec. 5, 2022 |
B315313
|
Loy v. Kenney
Preliminary injunction was appropriate where trial court concluded plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and there was an ongoing risk of public harm if the injunction were denied. |
Consumer Law |
|
J. Wiley | Nov. 21, 2022 |
21-35746
|
Borden v. EFinancial LLC
No violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act when company used a random number generator to select numbers from a list to send text messages to. |
Consumer Law |
|
K. Lee | Nov. 17, 2022 |
B306275
|
Figueroa v. FCA US
Manufacturer had no right to net cash from consumer's sale of defective vehicle that only occurred dur to manufacturer's refusal to replace the vehicle as required by the Song-Beverly Act. |
Consumer Law |
|
A. Gilbert | Oct. 27, 2022 |
20-35962
|
Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc.
Contractors using cell phone numbers for both personal and business use who had registered for the national do-not-call database were presumptively residential subscribers entitled to consumer protections. |
Consumer Law |
|
W. Fletcher | Oct. 13, 2022 |
E076006
|
Salazar v. Walmart, Inc.
Demurrer without leave to amend was inappropriate where the plaintiff-appellant stated a viable claim that a reasonable consumer could be deceived by product's packaging and location. |
Consumer Law |
|
C. Codrington | Sep. 21, 2022 |
B310859
|
Moore v. Centrelake Medical Group, Inc.
After a medical center's data breach, to determine standing for their Unfair Competition Law claim, patients were not required to establish subsequent misappropriation of their personal identifying information. |
Consumer Law |
|
N. Manella | Sep. 20, 2022 |
E076001
|
Salazar v. Target Corp.
Demurrer without leave to amend was inappropriate where the plaintiff-appellant stated a viable claim that a reasonable consumer could be deceived by product's price tag description. |
Consumer Law |
|
C. Codrington | Sep. 20, 2022 |
20-17307
|
Cohen v. Apple
Federal Communications Commission regulations that set the upper limits on the levels of permitted RF radiation from cell phones preempted state laws that imposed liability premised on unsafe levels of radiation. |
Consumer Law |
|
W. Fletcher | Aug. 29, 2022 |