BRANICK v. DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
Filed 7/24/06 (This opn. should follow companion case, S131798, also filed 7/24/06)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
v. )
ASSOCIATION, ) Super. Ct. No. BC280755
)
__________ )
In the companion case of Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's LLC, (July 24, 2006, S131798) __ Cal.4th __ (CDR), we hold that Proposition 64 (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)), which limited standing to sue under California's statutory unfair competition and false advertising laws (Bus. & Prof. Code,[1] §§ 17200 et seq., 17500 et seq.; see §§ 17203, 17204, 17535), governs pending cases. We granted review in this case to decide whether plaintiffs, whose standing Proposition 64 has revoked, may amend their complaint to substitute a new plaintiff who does enjoy standing and, if so, whether such an amendment relates back for purposes of the statute of limitations to the date on which the original complaint was filed.
We hold as follows: Proposition 64 does not affect the ordinary rules governing the amendment of complaints and their relation back. We thus reject defendant's contention that courts may never permit a plaintiff to amend a complaint to satisfy Proposition 64's standing requirements. Whether plaintiffs in this case may amend, however, cannot be determined at this stage of the proceedings because plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for leave to amend, identified any person who might be named as a plaintiff, or described the claims such a person might assert. On remand, should plaintiffs in fact file a motion to amend, the superior court should decide the motion by applying the established rules governing leave to amend (Code Civ. Proc., § 473) and the relation back of amended complaints (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 408-409).
I. Introduction
On February 3, 2003, before the voters approved Proposition 64, plaintiffs Thomas Branick and Ardra Campbell filed a complaint against defendant Downey Savings and Loan Association un der the unfair competition and false advertising laws. (§§ 17200 et seq., 17500 et seq.) Plaintiffs alleged defendant had misrepresented and overcharged customers for fees charged by governmental entities to record official documents used in real estate transactions, such as deeds, reconvey ances and powers of attorney, among others. Plaintiffs did not allege they had transacted business with defendant, paid fees to defendant, suffered injury in fact, or lost money or property as a result of defendant's alleged practices. Instead, plaintiffs claimed standing to sue on behalf of â€
