Wayne v. BP Oil Supply
Filed 3/27/06 Wayne v. BP Oil Supply CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| ALAN WAYNE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BP OIL SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. | B180025 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC244334) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victoria G. Chaney, Judge. Affirmed.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Steve W. Berman, Craig R. Spiegel, Lee M. Gordon; The Rossbacher Firm, Henry H. Rossbacher, James S. Cahill and Talin Khachaturian, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kirkland & Ellis, J. Andrew Langan, Barack S. Echols, Jeffrey J. Zeiger, Alexander F. MacKinnon; Arnold & Porter and Ronald C. Redcay, for Defendant and Respondent.
Introduction
Plaintiff Alan Wayne (Wayne or plaintiff) appeals from a judgment on the pleadings in his class action against defendant, BP Oil Supply Company (BP or defendant), for the alleged improper manipulation of the price of Alaska North Slope crude oil and the resulting impact on California consumers of gasoline. Plaintiff, as a consumer of gasoline on behalf of himself and the class of California consumers of gasoline, sought restitution and disgorgement of profits based on claims for violation of, and a declaration of a violation of, the California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code,[1] § 17200 et seq., (UCL) and unjust enrichment. We hold that neither Wayne nor the class he seeks to represent has stated facts sufficient to state a cause of action under the UCL, for unjust enrichment or for declaratory relief because the remedy sought is not available under the UCL and they do not have a claim under the theory of unjust enrichment. We affirm the judgment on the pleadings.
background
Plaintiff filed his original class action and representative complaint alleging that defendant violated the UCL by unfairly manipulating crude oil prices. Wayne sought to represent a class of all purchasers of gasoline in the State of California during the period 1992 through 1999. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging that defendant used its market power to manipulate and control the price of crude oil sold to refineries in California, Hawaii, and Washington, and that this product ultimately was sold to California consumers as gasoline. In describing the purported market manipulation, plaintiff alleged that during 1994 through 1999, defendant analyzed supply and demand for crude oil on the West Coast of the United States with a computer program called the â€
