California 17200

Assignment of Rights to Sue under 17200 and Private Attorney General Act
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1756 v. Superior Court
No. S151615
California Supreme Court

NCLC urged the California Supreme Court to hold that an assignee of a cause of action does not obtain the assignor’s right to sue either as a class representative in a class action or as the representative plaintiff in some sort of non-class “representative action.” In the alternative, NCLC argued that any representative action to enforce rights under Business & Professions Code § 17200 (the “UCL”) should be brought, if at all, as a class action.  NCLC also argued that claims under the California Labor Code’s Private Attorney General Act are not assignable.

Amicus brief filed 12/28/07.

View brief

California Proposition 64 and Commercial Speech
Pfizer Inc. v. Galfano
No. B188106
Court of Appeals of the State of California, Los Angeles County

The Court of Appeals of California for Los Angeles County set aside the class action status granted by the lower court.  The appeals court agreed with NCLC's argument that Proposition 64 clearly established all members of a consumer class action should show they suffered an injury as a result of the false advertising. 

Amicus brief filed 4/19/06.  Oral argument held 6/12/06.  Decision 7/11/06.

 View brief             View decision

Extraterritorial Reach of California 17200 Consumer Protection Law (Nevada)
Snowney, et al. v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.
No. S124286
Supreme Court of the State of California

Disagreeing with NCLC, the Supreme Court of California upheld an intermediate appellate court's ruling that California can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a Las Vegas hotel based on the hotel's advertising in California.  The lower court's decision refused to connect the harm claimed by this class action - that Harrah's had illegally exacted a $3 nightly energy surcharge - with Harrah's limited advertising contacts with California.  As a result, NCLC argued that minimal harm to California residents could illegally result in jurisdiction over a foreign defendant there, based on any number of business practices that are typical of firms that do business nationwide.

Application for leave to file brief and amicus brief in support of defendants/petitioners filed 10/14/04.  Oral argument scheduled for 5/3/05.  Decision 6/6/05.

 View brief