Id. at 227. As Plaintiff in this case has failed to plead any—let alone satisfy a sufficient—nexus between herself, a nonresident, and the state of California, California substantive law—that is, California Business and Professional Code §§ 17200 and 17500 and California Civil Code § 1750— these claims cannot be asserted in this case since, under California law, it would be unconstitutional to permit Plaintiff to do so. Plaintiff’s claims are therefore barred as a matter of law and summary judgment should be granted to Bard on these claims.

In addition, the court granted plaintiffs’ request to add the Board as a new defendant. In March 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC) for (1) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.), (2) violation of the Consumers Leg- al Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ.Code, § 1750 et seq.), and (3) violation of section 6359 and *520 California Code of Regulations, title 18, sec- tion 1603 (regulation 1603). The second amended complaint did not name the Board as a de- fendant.

First Cause Of Action: Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 Plaintiffs’ challenge to Defendant’s right to collect mortgage payments and claim that Defendant violated Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. by improperly servicing, collecting and instituting foreclosure proceedings on their loan fails as a matter of law. (See Compl.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.) on behalf of the California Class; (2) violation of UCL—unfair acts (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.) on behalf of the California Class; (3) violation of the California False Advertising Law (FAL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.) on behalf of the California Class; (4) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA, California Civil Code § 1750) on behalf of the California Class; (5) Unjust Enrichment on behalf of the Classes, or in the alternative, on behalf of the California Class; and (6) violations of the Consumer Protection Laws on behalf of Classes in states with similar laws. (See generally FAC.)

(Bowers v. Fed’n Internationale de l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007)). (4) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints and Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims contained therein fail because Plaintiffs rely on non-actionable puffery and no duty to disclose exists. (Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.1997)). (5) In addition to the proceeding reasons, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any state’s consumer fraud statutes for the following reasons: a. California – Mahoney and Jammers Complaints: (1) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. 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.

(Bowers v. Fed’n Internationale de l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007)). (4) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints and Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims contained therein fail because Plaintiffs rely on non-actionable puffery and no duty to disclose exists. (Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.1997)). (5) In addition to the proceeding reasons, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any state’s consumer fraud statutes for the following reasons: a. California – Mahoney and Jammers Complaints: (1) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. 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.

(Bowers v. Fed’n Internationale de l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007)). (4) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints and Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims contained therein fail because Plaintiffs rely on non-actionable puffery and no duty to disclose exists. (Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.1997)). (5) In addition to the proceeding reasons, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any state’s consumer fraud statutes for the following reasons: a. California – Mahoney and Jammers Complaints: (1) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. 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.

(5) In addition to the proceeding reasons, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any state’s consumer fraud statutes for the following reasons: a. California – Mahoney and Jammers Complaints: (1) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. 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.

(Bowers v. Fed’n Internationale de l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007)). (4) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints and Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims contained therein fail because Plaintiffs rely on non-actionable puffery and no duty to disclose exists. (Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.1997)). (5) In addition to the proceeding reasons, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any state’s consumer fraud statutes for the following reasons: a. California – Mahoney and Jammers Complaints: (1) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. 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.

(Bowers v. Fed’n Internationale de l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007)). (4) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints and Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims contained therein fail because Plaintiffs rely on non-actionable puffery and no duty to disclose exists. (Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.1997)). (5) In addition to the proceeding reasons, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any state’s consumer fraud statutes for the following reasons: a. California – Mahoney and Jammers Complaints: (1) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. 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.