17 Cited authorities

McKell v. Washington Mutual Inc.
142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 705 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL
Kasky v. Nike
27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002) Cited 668 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements by the defendant about the working conditions of its overseas employees were not protected by the First Amendment and could give rise to a claim for fraudulent business practices under the UCL
Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998) Cited 754 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"
Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004) Cited 413 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the trial court may consider results obtained in awarding a fee multiplier
Saunders v. Superior Court
27 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 545 times
Finding that aiding and abetting requires actual knowledge
Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.
171 Cal.App.4th 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 332 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing
Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies
46 Cal.3d 287 (Cal. 1988) Cited 510 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that section 790.03(h) has no private right of action
Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
17 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 1998) Cited 288 times 4 Legal Analyses
Concluding that “the fact a UCL action is based upon, or may even promote the achievement of, policy ends underlying section 308 or the STAKE Act, does not, of itself, transform the action into one for the ‘enforcement’ of section 308”
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
Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
135 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 143 times
Holding that the insured could not state a claim for breach of the implied covenant without showing the withholding of a benefit that was in fact due under the contract

ZHANG v. S.C. (CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE)

17 Cited authorities

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

Holding that statements by the defendant about the working conditions of its overseas employees were not protected by the First Amendment and could give rise to a claim for fraudulent business practices under the UCL

Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"

Holding the trial court may consider results obtained in awarding a fee multiplier

Finding that aiding and abetting requires actual knowledge

Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing

Holding that section 790.03(h) has no private right of action

Concluding that “the fact a UCL action is based upon, or may even promote the achievement of, policy ends underlying section 308 or the STAKE Act, does not, of itself, transform the action into one for the ‘enforcement’ of section 308”

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

Holding that the insured could not state a claim for breach of the implied covenant without showing the withholding of a benefit that was in fact due under the contract