Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988 (Cal. 2004). Therefore, although a breach of contract may form the predicate for a section 17200 claim, the defendant’s conduct must also be unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent. Nat'l Rural Telcoms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

For instance, in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1093 (1996), clauses in standard form insurance contracts were found to violate the UCL. See also Allied Grape Growers v. Bronco Wine Co., 203 Cal. App. 3d 432, 449-53 (1988) (contract to sell agricultural goods violated § 17200); Bondanza v. Peninsula Hospital & Medical Center, 23 Cal. 3d 260, 266-67 (1979) (provision in collection agency contract violated UCL).

Case 8:14-cv-00653-JLS-MAN Document 16 Filed 05/21/14 Page 25 of 27 Page ID #:261 L aw O ff ic es o f S an fo rd P ar k e 2 3 9 0 E . O ra n g e w o o d , S u it e 4 4 0 , A n a h e im , C A 9 2 8 0 6 - 21 - Plaintiff David & Erin Doherty v Bank of America, et.al Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant Bank of America 12(b)6 Motion 8:14-cv-00653-JVS-(Manx) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, and subject to the liberal and favorable inferences mandated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), it is respectfully submitted that plaintiff has stated claims for Violation of §2923.6,Unfair Business Practices, B&P Code §§17200 et seq., Violation of §1788.17 of RFDCPA, Negligence and that plaintiff should be afforded his day in court. Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that the Complaint has satisfied the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) in that plaintiff has alleged, in detail, (a) the alleged events, (b)Negligence and Negligent Representations, (c) Statutory Obligations (Complaint ¶¶1-52, (d) by the Defendant speaker, (e) when the statements were made and (f) why the statements/ and representations made were violations of statutes and duties..

[*1449] The Unfair Competition Law HN2FCA(1)E(1) The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (Bus. & Prof, Code, § 17200.) Its coverage [**8] is broad, embracing “* “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the sametimeis forbidden by law.”

Appearances were as stated on the record. Having read and considered the Motion to Dismiss and all pleadings and papers submitted by the parties in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and having heard and considered the argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Motion to Dismiss is granted in its entirety without leave to amend on the following grounds: (i) Plaintiff David Greenstein’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code § 12606.2 or 21 C.F.R. § 100.100; (ii) the FAC fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) on the basis of either “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) or “untrue or misleading advertising” (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.); (iii) the FAC does not satisfy the plausibility standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”); (iv) the FAC fails to satisfy the particularity requirement of FRCP 9(b); (v) Plaintiff’s claim is preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343–1 and 21 C.F.R. §100.100; and (vi) dismissal should be with prejudice and without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. /// /// /// Case 2:16-cv-08008-JFW-MRW Document 50-2 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:471 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U I T E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 - 2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1175975.1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2.

LITY AND DAMAGES PROCEEDINGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY, MATTHEW MANAHAN, and ELIE GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, By their attorneys, _/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_______________ Shannon Liss-Riordan, pro hac vice Adelaide Pagano, pro hac vice LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com, apagano@llrlaw.com Matthew Carlson (SBN 273242) Carlson Legal Services 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 817-1470 Email: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com Dated: December 17, 2015 Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 419 Filed 12/17/15 Page 12 of 13 11 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISMISS THEIR STAND-ALONE CAL. LABOR CODE § 2802 CLAIM AND PURSUE THE CLAIM THROUGH THE CAL. BUS. PROF. CODE §§ 17200 AND TO BIFURCATE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES PROCEEDINGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by electronic filing on December 17, 2015, on all counsel of record. _/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_______________ Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.

Cortez v. Purlator Air Filtration Prods., 23 Cal. 4th 163, 172 (2000) (in section 17200 case, trial court could not order disgorgement; “it may only order restitution to persons from whom money or property has been unfairly or unlawfully obtained.”).

AND ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS 5. DECLARATION OF PETE SCIABARRA IN SUPPORT OF VISTAGE INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DISMISSAL, OF PLAINTIFFS’ FRAUD AND CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 CLAIMS AS AGAINST VISTAGE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Case 3:15-cv-02025-WQH-JLB Document 47-6 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 2 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3:15-cv-02025-WQH-JLB I am familiar with the United States District Court, Southern District of California’s practice for collecting and processing electronic filings.

Krantz v. BT Visual Images, LLC, 89 Cal.App.4th 164, 178 (2001). Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Section 17200 claim is based on other causes of action in the Complaint, this claim fails for the same reasons described in this Motion. The Court should therefore grant this Motion with prejudice.

to provide workers’ compensation as required by Labor Code section 3700; f. and failing to provide employees with itemized written statements as required by Labor Codesection 226, Mf 3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES CU B C e L I C E s d a d “P F N n M N W w C O 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 | 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRAYERFOR RELI F WHEREFORE,the People prayforthe followingrelief: 1. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, that defendants,their successors, agents, representatives, employees and all persons whoact in concert with defendants be permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair competition as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200,including, but not limited to, acts and practices alleged in this complaint; | 2. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, that the Court assess a civil penalty oftwo thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) against Defendants for each violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, the total amount being noless than $50,000.00 or as proved attrial; 3. That the People recovertheir costs of suit; and 4, Such other and further relief that the Court deems appropriate and just, Dated: September $, 2008 Respectfully submitted, | EDMUNDG, BROWN JR. Attorney Generalof the State of California MARK J. BRECKLER Senior Assistant Attorney General JON M. ICHTINAGA Supervising Deputy Attorney General MAURICE JOURDANE Deputy Attorney General CAROLYN Y. LA Deputy Attorney General By: Luangn. . CAROLYN Y. of Deputy Mtoniey General Attomeysfor Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Attorney General] of the State of California 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES Exhibit J o O o - . n N t n > , @ 1 SATOSHI YANAL_-—~ Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff = 60339274.