Filed 1/9/07 Paz v. Sanders Oldsmobile-Cadillac CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Auchard & Stewart and Malcolm H. Stewart for Defendants and Appellants.
William M. Krieg & Associates, William M. Krieg and Eric M. Kapigian for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
The impact of Proposition 64--a ballot initiative entitled â€
Description
The impact of Proposition 64 a ballot initiative entitled "Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws" (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)) is the focal point of these appeals from a judgment (No. F048438) and a companion appeal (No. F049006) from an attorney fees order in a multi count representative action. The action arose from the purchase and sale of used cars with an extended service agreement (ESA) as a stated requirement for bank financing. Appellants summarize the action in case No. F048438 in the following manner: "This is an appeal from a Judgment granting restitution to the non party general public after a Jury unanimously concluded that the named Plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief (damages including restitution), and the Trial Court also concluded that the named Plaintiffs were not entitled to any equitable relief (restitution or injunction). "After the Jury Trial but before Judgment was entered, California voters passed Proposition 64 which limited the right of private persons to prosecute Unfair Competition Law ('UCL') actions. Before passage, any uninjured person could prosecute such an action 'on behalf of the general public'. After passage, uninjured private persons no longer had standing to prosecute an UCL action, but were required to have suffered actual injury and lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition, and also required to satisfy class certification procedures. The Judgment, however, concluded that Proposition 64 did not bar this action. "This Appeal presents two central issues: (1) Does Proposition 64 apply to this case; and, (2) Is the award of restitution to the general public after denying any equitable relief to the named Plaintiffs logically and legally inconsistent with binding Jury Verdict and Trial Court findings and conclusions" The "JUDGMENT" (after bifurcated jury and court trials) filed May 3, 2005, and the "ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS OF DEFENDANTS" filed September 12, 2005, are each reversed. The matters are however remanded to the trial court for such proceedings as may be appropriate pursuant to Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235.
