Id. at *19-22; see also Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1602, 1616-17 (2011), the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to state a section 17200 claim based on an alleged violation of Civil Code section 2923.5 and stated “…plaintiffs cannot properly allege they lost money or property ‘as a result of’ defendants’ alleged violation of section 2923.5 (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204)…”).

See Motion at 14 n.13. The CLRA, FAL and UCL each provide for restitution as a possible remedy, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a)(3); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17535 & 17204), and “restitution” is “[a] body of substantive law in which liability is based . . . on the defendant’s unjust enrichment” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1339 (8th ed. 2004)). AOL’s argument that Plaintiffs’ claims “fail” because they seek restitution, see Motion at 13 n.13, confuses available remedies with required elements under those statutes. Neither case cited by AOL supports its contention that Plaintiffs must “quantify the portion of their fees that AOL is retaining unjustly.” Id.

. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not and cannot allege that they were injured in fact, or that they “lost money or property as a result of,” the Rental Car Defendants’ aleged descriptions of the tourism assessment–i.e., that but for such descriptions, they would not have entered into the contracts.8 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204; see also Medina v. Safe-Guard Prods.Int’l, Inc., ___ 7

“To satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by Proposition 64, a party must (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact . . . and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice . . .” Kwikset, 51 Cal. 4th at 322 (emphasis added); see also Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1305, 1348 (2009) (“[T]he phrase ‘as a result of’ connotates an element of causation (i.e., [Plaintiff Docken] lost money because of [Defendant’s] unfair competition).”); Quadrant Info. Servs., LLC v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., No. C 11-6648 SBA, 2012 WL 3155559, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug 2, 2012) (“The ‘as a result of’ language in § 17204 imposes a causation requirement.”); In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 328

28 unfair or fraudulent practices." DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., 2011 WL 311376, *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204). "That causal connection is broken when a complaining party would suffer the same harm whether or not a defendant complied with the law

Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL fail because: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated any of the statutes or regulations that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and Plaintiffs’ other causes of action fail and cannot support a UCL claim for “unlawful” practices (Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327, 1333-34 (2002)); (2) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated an constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and cannot support a UCL claim for “unfair” practices (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1555 (2007)); (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege a duty to disclose necessary to support their UCL claim (Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981, 986 (2008)); (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation as required under the UCL and FAL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17204 and 17535; Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746, 754 (2003)); (5) Case 2:15-cv-06230-RGK-PLA Document 55-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:616 6 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive members of the public and thus cannot state a claim under the UCL or FAL (Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C 05-3465 PJH, 2006 WL 13058, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006)); (6) The UCL and FAL only provide for equitable relief (Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095); and (7) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot allege a likelihood of future injury (City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)).

Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL fail because: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated any of the statutes or regulations that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and Plaintiffs’ other causes of action fail and cannot support a UCL claim for “unlawful” practices (Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327, 1333-34 (2002)); (2) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated an constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and cannot support a UCL claim for “unfair” practices (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1555 (2007)); (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege a duty to disclose necessary to support their UCL claim (Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981, 986 (2008)); (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation as required under the UCL and FAL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17204 and 17535; Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746, 754 (2003)); (5) Case 2:15-cv-06573-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:539 6 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive members of the public and thus cannot state a claim under the UCL or FAL (Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C 05-3465 PJH, 2006 WL 13058, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006)); (6) The UCL and FAL only provide for equitable relief (Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095); and (7) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot allege a likelihood of future injury (City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)).

Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL fail because: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated any of the statutes or regulations that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and Plaintiffs’ other causes of action fail and cannot support a UCL claim for “unlawful” practices (Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327, 1333-34 (2002)); (2) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated an constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and cannot support a UCL claim for “unfair” practices (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1555 (2007)); (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege a duty to disclose necessary to support their UCL claim (Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981, 986 (2008)); (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation as required under the UCL and FAL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17204 and 17535; Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746, 754 (2003)); (5) Case 2:15-cv-06664-RGK-PLA Document 34-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:526 6 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive members of the public and thus cannot state a claim under the UCL or FAL (Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C 05-3465 PJH, 2006 WL 13058, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006)); (6) The UCL and FAL only provide for equitable relief (Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095); and (7) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot allege a likelihood of future injury (City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)).

Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL fail because: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated any of the statutes or regulations that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and Plaintiffs’ other causes of action fail and cannot support a UCL claim for “unlawful” practices (Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327, 1333-34 (2002)); (2) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated an constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and cannot support a UCL claim for “unfair” practices (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1555 (2007)); (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege a duty to disclose necessary to support their UCL claim (Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981, 986 (2008)); (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation as required under the UCL and FAL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17204 and 17535; Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746, 754 (2003)); (5) Case 2:15-cv-06574-RGK-PLA Document 48-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:541 6 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive members of the public and thus cannot state a claim under the UCL or FAL (Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C 05-3465 PJH, 2006 WL 13058, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006)); (6) The UCL and FAL only provide for equitable relief (Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095); and (7) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot allege a likelihood of future injury (City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)).

Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL fail because: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated any of the statutes or regulations that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and Plaintiffs’ other causes of action fail and cannot support a UCL claim for “unlawful” practices (Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327, 1333-34 (2002)); (2) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated an constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and cannot support a UCL claim for “unfair” practices (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1555 (2007)); (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege a duty to disclose necessary to support their UCL claim (Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981, 986 (2008)); (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation as required under the UCL and FAL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17204 and 17535; Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746, 754 (2003)); (5) Case 2:15-cv-06564-RGK-PLA Document 58-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:548 6 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive members of the public and thus cannot state a claim under the UCL or FAL (Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C 05-3465 PJH, 2006 WL 13058, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006)); (6) The UCL and FAL only provide for equitable relief (Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095); and (7) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot allege a likelihood of future injury (City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)).