Banales v. AT&T Wireless Services
Filed 5/3/06 Banales v. AT&T Wireless Services CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| DANIEL BANALES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. | B184031 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC312007) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Edward A. Ferns, Judge. Reversed.
Eisner & Associates, Eisner & Frank and Asha Dhillon for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, Michael Lawrence Mallow; Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Donald M. Falk and Sarah Weinstein for Defendant and Respondent.
___________________________
In November 2004, the voters passed Proposition 64, which amended the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The amendment relevant to this appeal altered the categories of persons afforded standing to prosecute a cause of action under Business and Professions Code section 17200. â€
