Legal Opinion · Dissent

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 15, 2016No. B270796Published

1Dissent

BIGELOW, P. J.,*

Dissenting.—I respectfully dissent. I do not believe plaintiffs have raised a triable issue of fact as to reliance; therefore I would affirm the trial court judgment.

In Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310 [120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877] (Kwikset), the California Supreme Court explained that to establish a claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.,1 the unfair competition law (UCL), or section 17500 et seq., the fair advertising law (FAL), as amended by Proposition 64 (Prop. 64), a consumer must plead and prove an “injury in fact”…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  2. In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Chern v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1999

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API