9 Cited authorities

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court
51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) Cited 1,559 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"
Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.
55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) Cited 667 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[i]nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act, given that the Cartwright Act was modeled not on federal antitrust statutes but instead on statutes enacted by California's sister states around the turn of the 20th century."
McKell v. Washington Mutual Inc.
142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 704 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL
Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 560 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"
Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.
23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000) Cited 555 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"
Zhang v. Superior Court
57 Cal.4th 364 (Cal. 2013) Cited 232 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim," but that "when insurers engage in conduct that violates both [ section 790.03 ] and obligations imposed by other statutes or the common law, a UCL action may lie"
Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.
45 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 2009) Cited 256 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a demand letter under section 1782 can set forth "an individual or class grievance" with respect to alleged violations of section 1770
Hale v. Sharp Healthcare
183 Cal.App.4th 1373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 104 times
Concluding that the reasoning of Tobacco II applies to the "unlawful" prong of the UCL when the predicate unlawful conduct is misrepresentation
Nelson v. Pearson Ford, Co.
186 Cal.App.4th 983 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 58 times 1 Legal Analyses
Involving stipulation to use statistical sampling methodology

LOEFFLER v. TARGET CORPORATION

9 Cited authorities

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

Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL

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

Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"

Holding that "a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim," but that "when insurers engage in conduct that violates both [ section 790.03 ] and obligations imposed by other statutes or the common law, a UCL action may lie"

Holding that a demand letter under section 1782 can set forth "an individual or class grievance" with respect to alleged violations of section 1770

Concluding that the reasoning of Tobacco II applies to the "unlawful" prong of the UCL when the predicate unlawful conduct is misrepresentation

Involving stipulation to use statistical sampling methodology