24 Cited authorities

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court
51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) Cited 1,564 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) Cited 2,422 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 564 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"
Birdsong v. Apple
590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 318 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that hypothetical injury was insufficient for standing
Bardin v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
136 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 304 times
Holding that the use of less expensive tubular steel exhaust manifolds did not violate public policy because the defendant made no representation about the composition of the manifolds and the plaintiffs did not allege a safety concern or a violation of the warranty
Central Delta Water Agency v. U.S.
306 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 229 times
Holding that “monetary compensation may well not adequately return plaintiffs to their original position” because harms to the environment “are frequently difficult or impossible to remedy”
Schnall v. Hertz Corp.
78 Cal.App.4th 1144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 176 times
Finding that disclaimers do not give notice to the reasonable consumer when they are incomprehensible and needlessly complex
Gregory v. Albertson's, Inc.
104 Cal.App.4th 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 159 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an unfairness claim must be “tethered to specific constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions.”
Davel Commc'n, Inc. v. Qwest Corp.
451 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 105 times
Holding that "where . . . the allegations of the complaint do not necessarily require the doctrine's applicability, then the primary jurisdiction doctrine may not be applied on a motion to dismiss"
Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp.
944 F. Supp. 2d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2013) Cited 85 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that breach of express warranty claim based on statement that a soda contained "all natural flavors" failed because the statement accurately described the product and the plaintiff did not identify any artificial flavor in the drink
Section 7671g - National recycling and emission reduction program
42 U.S.C. § 7671g Cited 4 times
(a) In general (1) The Administrator shall, by not later than January 1, 1992, promulgate regulations establishing standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal of class I substances during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration. Such standards and requirements shall become effective not later than July 1, 1992. (2) The Administrator shall, within 4 years after November 15, 1990, promulgate regulations establishing standards and requirements
Section 170.30 - Eligibility for classification as generally recognized as safe (GRAS)
21 C.F.R. § 170.30 Cited 11 times 7 Legal Analyses
In 21 C.F.R. § 170.30, the FDA establishes how a food additive may be classified as GRAS and notes, in 21 C.F.R. § 182.1(a) and (d), that "[i]t is impracticable to list all substances that are [GRAS] for their intended use" but that many substances that are GRAS "are listed in this part."
Section 170.38 - Determination of food additive status
21 C.F.R. § 170.38 Cited 2 times
(a) The Commissioner may, in accordance with § 170.35(b)(4) , publish a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER determining that a substance is not GRAS under the conditions of its intended use and is a food additive subject to section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. (b) (1) The Commissioner, on his own initiative or on the petition of any interested person, pursuant to part 10 of this chapter, may issue a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER proposing to determine that a substance is not GRAS

McGee v. Diamond Foods, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"

Holding that hypothetical injury was insufficient for standing

Holding that the use of less expensive tubular steel exhaust manifolds did not violate public policy because the defendant made no representation about the composition of the manifolds and the plaintiffs did not allege a safety concern or a violation of the warranty

Holding that “monetary compensation may well not adequately return plaintiffs to their original position” because harms to the environment “are frequently difficult or impossible to remedy”

Finding that disclaimers do not give notice to the reasonable consumer when they are incomprehensible and needlessly complex

Holding that an unfairness claim must be “tethered to specific constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions.”

Holding that "where . . . the allegations of the complaint do not necessarily require the doctrine's applicability, then the primary jurisdiction doctrine may not be applied on a motion to dismiss"

Holding that breach of express warranty claim based on statement that a soda contained "all natural flavors" failed because the statement accurately described the product and the plaintiff did not identify any artificial flavor in the drink

In 21 C.F.R. § 170.30, the FDA establishes how a food additive may be classified as GRAS and notes, in 21 C.F.R. § 182.1(a) and (d), that "[i]t is impracticable to list all substances that are [GRAS] for their intended use" but that many substances that are GRAS "are listed in this part."