Summary
The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 64 applies to pending unfair competition and false advertising actions, including by revoking standing from plaintiffs who had not suffered injury in fact or lost money or property. The court rejected a categorical bar on amending complaints to substitute plaintiffs who satisfy Proposition 64's standing requirements. It affirmed remand to the superior court to apply ordinary rules governing leave to amend and relation back, including Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and the Norgart factors.
Holdings
- Proposition 64 does not expressly or implicitly prohibit a plaintiff whose standing was revoked by the measure from seeking to amend the complaint to substitute or add a plaintiff who satisfies the measure's standing requirements.
- A motion to substitute or add a plaintiff must be decided under the established rules governing leave to amend, including Code of Civil Procedure section 473; the decision rests initially within the trial court's discretion.
- Whether an amendment substituting a plaintiff relates back must be determined under the ordinary relation-back doctrine; the amended complaint must rest on the same general set of facts, involve the same injury, and refer to the same instrumentality as the original complaint.
Questions Presented
- Whether Proposition 64 categorically bars plaintiffs whose standing was revoked by the measure from amending their complaint to substitute or add a plaintiff who satisfies the amended standing requirements.
- Whether ordinary California rules governing leave to amend apply to a proposed substitution of a plaintiff after Proposition 64 took effect.
- Whether an amended complaint substituting a plaintiff with standing may relate back to the original complaint for statute-of-limitations purposes.
- Whether the Supreme Court could determine at that stage whether plaintiffs' hypothetical amendment would introduce a wholly distinct legal obligation or cause of action.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (16)
- Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's LLC, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 57, 138 P.3d 207 (Cal. 2006)(followed)
- Bertero v. National General Corp., 13 Cal. 3d 43, 50, 118 Cal. Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608 (1974)(followed)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal. 4th 1048, 1056-1057, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 516, 128 P.3d 713 (2006)(followed)
- Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 553, 561, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 731, 950 P.2d 1086 (1998)(followed)
- Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal. 3d 197, 211, 197 Cal. Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660 (1983)(followed)
- Haley v. Dow Lewis Motors, Inc., 72 Cal. App. 4th 497, 506-509, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (1999)(followed)
- Klopstock v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 2d 13, 19-21, 108 P.2d 906 (1941)(followed)
- California Air Resources Bd. v. Hart, 21 Cal. App. 4th 289, 300-301, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 153 (1993)(followed)
- Jensen v. Royal Pools, 48 Cal. App. 3d 717, 720-723, 121 Cal. Rptr. 805 (1975)(followed)
- Powers v. Ashton, 45 Cal. App. 3d 783, 790, 119 Cal. Rptr. 729 (1975)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…