Cellphone Fee Termination Cases affirms class action settlement with several instructive holdings

This initially unpublished opinion in Cellphone Fee Termination Cases (July 27, 2010) follows from a consolidated appeal in one of several coordinated class actions that challenged wireless telephone carriers' practice of charging early termination fees (ETF's) on customers seeking to cancel cellular telephone contracts. The defendant in this particular case is Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless ("Verizon")).  The class action case against Verizon went to a jury trial on June 16, 2008, in the Alameda County Superior Court. On July 8, 2008, after plaintiffs had rested their case and the defense presentation had commenced, the parties announced that they had signed a memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of a settlement. The settlement also encompassed claims of nationwide certified class claimants (excluding California class members) in a proceeding then pending before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), as well as two actions filed in federal district courts.

Objectors challenged the settlement at final approval, contending that the notice of the settlement was inadequate,  that the settlement terms were not fair, reasonable and adequate, and that incentive payments awarded to four named class representatives were improper.  The trial court overruled the objections and approved the settlement.  The objectors appealed, but the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Five) affirmed.

In an otherwise standard, but lengthy, discussion of appellate review standards, the Court offered some useful holdings:

• The appellants argued that the statement in the short-form publication notice was misleading in that it gave the impression that members of the Subscriber Class would share in a portion of the $21 million settlement fund.  The Court disagreed:  "That publication notice, however, (as well as the mail notice) directed potential settlement class members to the settlement Web site to learn more about the settlement, and the publication notice specifically referenced the ― detailed notice and claim form package which subscribers would need to submit to ― qualify for a payment."  Slip op., at 11.  Thus, the short form notice need not contain all information about the settlement, so long as it directs class members to a source of full information about the settlement.
• The appellants also argued that notice was defective in failing to disclose the enormous size of the class to the EFT Assessed Class, asserting that this interfered with an informed decision about whether to participate, object, or opt out.  The Court quickly disposed of that argument: "[Appellant] cites no authority for her position that information as to the size of the potential class, or the contingencies of recovery in any particular amount, is required. Courts which have considered such objections in the context of class settlement have rejected the claim."  Slip op., at 13.
• The appellants also contended that $10,000 incentive awards to the representatives constituted a breach of their fiduciary duty to the class. Specifically, appellant alleged that "Schroer and White received amounts grossly disproportionate to the average recovery to the ETF Assessed Class", and asserted that "Nguyen and Brown (members of the Subscriber Class) received 'pay-offs to induce them to sell out the Subscriber Class.'" Slip op., at 20. The Court commented: "While there has been scholarly debate about the propriety of individual awards to named plaintiffs, '[i]ncentive awards are fairly typical in class action cases.'"  Slip op., at 20. The Court went on, observing: "There is a surprising dearth of California authority directly addressing this question. The threshold question of whether a class representative is entitled to a fee in a California class action was recently answered in the affirmative in Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785 (Clark)." Slip op., at 21. After discussing the policies behind incentive awards and the evidence of representatives' efforts in this case, the Court concluded: "In contrast to the more detailed analysis given by the trial court to other aspects of the settlement, the discussion of the incentive awards was sparse. There is no 'presumption of fairness' in review of an incentive fee award. (Clark, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 806.) The court, however, found the awards justified in light of the total settlement on the 'substantial benefit/common fund approach' and the 'material support' provided by the named plaintiffs to the prosecution of the case. Given the familiarity of the trial court with the history of the lengthy litigation and the evidence before the court that the representatives had, over the course of the litigation, assisted with investigation, responded to discovery requests, reviewed documents and pleadings, and testified either in deposition or at trial, we find no abuse of discretion in these awards. Slip op., at 23.

Trial court, in Avalos v. La Salsa, Inc., offers early glimpse of how California courts may reconcile Stolt-Nielsen and Gentry

Earlier today, in Avalos v. La Salsa, Inc., JCCP 4488, the Santa Barbara Superior Court, Judge Denise deBellefeuille presiding, granted the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of a class certification order in to consider the impact of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010) on the coordinated proceedings before the Court.  After an extensive analysis of Stolt-Nielsen, including its interaction with Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (2007), the Court affirmed the certification order previously entered.  While the certification aspect is mildly interesting, the Court's extensive discussion of the interplay between arbitration clauses and class actions in California is the pot of gold in this unusually thorough trial court order.  While the attached opinion is a tentative ruling, the Court adopted its tentative without modification.

You can view the embedded opinion in the acrobat.com flash viewer below:

If the viewer isn't working for you (say, if you are viewing this on an iPad or iPhone), you can download the opinion here.

Comments now require approval before they appear

Due to an unrelenting attempt by spammers to advise you of the latest athletic shoe deals, or mortgage restructuring deals, or other exciting services, I have changed a setting on this blog so that comments require approval before they appear.  I am doing this solely to keep spammers from being rewarded by whatever "google juice" a link from this blog supplies.  Topical comments will be approved as soon as I can get to them.

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. examines fee shifting triggers in wage & hour litigation

After a very brief trip to the Windy City (aka, the Humid City in Need of a Breeze and my apologies to JB for not visiting), I bring you the first of yesterday's opinions related to class actions.  In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (July 27, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) examined an award of attorney fees to the defendant following a dismissal by the plaintiff when certification was denied.  Fees were awarded by the trial court on causes of action for UCL violations (first cause of action), rest period violations (sixth cause of action) and section 2810 violation for entering into contracts while knowing them to be insufficient to pay all wages owed (seventh cause of action).

The plaintiff argued that bilateral attorney fee awards are precluded in any "action" where a claim arising under section 1194 is included as one of the claims.  The Court explained why it rejected that construction:

Although Kirby advances a plausible reading of the legislative history, we reject it in favor of construing the section 1194 exception as applying only to causes of action for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. (Accord Earley, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430.) To adopt Kirby‟s statutory construction would allow the exception of section 1194's unilateral fee shifting to eviscerate the rule of section 218.5.

We harmonize sections 218.5 and 1194 by holding that section 218.5 applies to causes of action alleging nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or contributions to health, welfare and pension funds. If, in the same case, a plaintiff adds a cause of action for nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime, a defendant cannot recover attorney's fees for work in defending against the minimum wage or overtime claims. Nonetheless, the addition of a claim for unpaid minimum wages or overtime does not preclude recovery by a prevailing defendant for a cause of action unrelated to the minimum wage or overtime claim so long as a statute or contract provides for fee shifting in favor of the defendant.

Slip op., at 16-17.

More interesting is the Court's conclusion that section 218.5 applies to rest break claims:

Kirby's sixth cause of action alleged that Kirby was “owed an additional one hour of wages per day per missed rest period.”  As a claim seeking additional wages, the sixth cause of action was subject to section 218.5's provision of attorney's fees for “any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions . . . .” (Italics added.)

Slip op., at 19 (footnotes omitted).  The Court explained why the plaintiff was incorrect that section 1194 controlled the fee issue:

Kirby's claim was not based on a failure to pay the statutory minimum wage for hours he actually worked. Instead, the cause of action was one for failure to provide rest periods. If his claim had succeeded, Kirby would have been entitled to an additional wage “at the employee's rate of compensation.” (See fn. 25, ante.) The “employee's rate of compensation” refers to the contractual rate of compensation, not the legal minimum wage. Consequently, the claim is not one premised on failure to pay the minimum wage.

Slip op., at 19.  The Court relied, in part, on Murphy, which, oddly enough, seems to provide the answer to virtually all wage & hour mysteries.  It wouldn't be surprising to see an increase in minimum wage claims and a concurrent reduction in contractual wage payment claims.

The Court had less difficulty analyzing the arguments related to the UCL claim and the section 2810 claim for underfunded contracts.  Regarding the UCL, the Court observed that it was a settled issue that attorney's fees were not specified as available under the UCL.  As for the last claim, the Court found that the fee provision in the statute was a unilateral fee-shifting statute.

Efforts to prune Labor Code section 203 are relegated to compost status in Baker v. American Horticulture Supply, Inc.

An ever astute reader has directed my attention to the fact that the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Six) today issued a modification of its June 23, 2010 Opinion in Baker v. American Horticulture Supply, Inc. (June 23, 2010) as mod. (July 21, 2010).  The modification, which is focused entirely on the "willful" definition used in Labor Code section 203, appears to respond to contentions raised in a petition for rehearing.  The majority of the text of the modification is as follows:

The application here of the ordinary definition of "willful" is supported by the judicial construction of Labor Code section 203, subdivision (a), which provides in relevant part: "If an employer willfully fails to pay . . . any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days." (Italics added.) "The settled meaning of 'willful,' as used in section 203, is that an employer has intentionally failed or refused to perform an act which was required to be done. [Citations.] '[T]he employer's refusal to pay need not be based on a deliberate evil purpose to defraud workmen of wages which the employer knows to be due.' [Citations.]" (Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1201.)

Slip op. (mod.), at 1-2.

We reject respondent's contention in its petition for rehearing that "conduct violating the Act is willful only if the manufacturer, jobber or distributor knows of its obligations but intentionally declines to fulfill them." The knowledge requirement would be difficult to prove and would encourage manufacturers to remain ignorant of their obligations under the Act. This would frustrate the legislative intent to provide "unique protection" to independent wholesale sales representatives. (§ 1738.10.) But a manufacturer's failure to comply with the Act would not be willful if the manufacturer proved that its failure was "the result of a good faith and reasonable belief the facts imposing the statutory obligation were not present." (Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185.) For example, a failure to comply would not be willful if the manufacturer reasonably and in good faith believed that a person did not qualify as a "wholesale sales representative" within the meaning of the Act. This interpretation "will not vitiate the intended deterrent effect of the [treble damages provision]." (Ibid.)

Slip op. (mod.), at 2.

The courts, however, have recognized that a finding of "willfulness" within the meaning of Labor Code section 203 may be negated by a reasonable, good faith belief in a legal defense to a wage claim. (Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1201; Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314, 325; Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1, 8-9; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 13520.) Accordingly, we conclude that a finding of a willful failure "to pay commissions as provided in the written contract" (§ 1738.15) may be negated by a reasonable, good faith belief in a legal defense to a commissions claim.

Slip op. (mod.), at 2, n. 7.  The key here is the Court's rejection of a standard that would allow willfulness only when an employer "knows of its obligations but intentionally declines to fulfill them."  An employee does not have to show that the employer had any awareness of is actual obligations; it is enough to show that the employer acted but should have acted otherwise.

Courts draw lines on scope of statutory rights protected by Labor Code section 226

On one end of the Labor Code section 226 spectrum are the defendants who assert that the "injury" requirement of section 226 is met only when an employee suffers a broken leg as a result of the defective wage statement (this would occur when the statement is printed on stone and delivered by dropping it from a substantial height above the employee, whose legs are restrained in a horizontal position to ensure impact).  On the other end of the spectrum are the few optimistic plaintiff-side firms that argue that any violation of Labor Code section 226(a) requirements is an infringement of a legal right sufficient to entitle the employee to, at minimum, statutory penalty damages.

Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., et al., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1286 (February 8, 2010), which is the current standard in California, splits the difference at the very minimal injury level.  Specifically, Jaimez holds: "While there must be some injury in order to recover damages, a very modest showing will suffice."  Jaimez went on to state that '''this lawsuit, and the difficulty and expense [Jaimez has] encountered in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records,' may well be 'further evidence of the injury' he has suffered."  In other words, it takes something, but not much.

Today, in Morgan v. United Retail (July 19, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) added guidance as to what constitutes valid construction of section 226 requirements, or at least one small part of section 226.  Quickly summarizing the entire opinion, the Court said:

On behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt employees, Morgan alleged that United Retail's wage statements failed to comply with section 226, subdivision (a) because they listed the total number of regular hours and the total number of overtime hours worked by the employee, but did not list the sum of the regular and overtime hours worked in a separate line. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of United Retail on the section 226 claim. We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary adjudication because United Retail's wage statements complied with the statutory requirements of section 226 by “showing . . . total hours worked.” (§ 226, subd. (a)(2).) We accordingly affirm.

Slip op., at 2.  The Court of Appeal actually went out of its way to analyze the obligations imposed by section 226(a)(2):

Apart from the summary conclusion in Rubin, however, none of the published cases or DLSE opinion letters directly address whether the “total hours worked” component of section 226 may be satisfied by separately listing the total regular hours and the total overtime hours worked during the pay period. (§ 226, subd. (a)(2).) Section 226 itself does not define the terms “showing” or “total hours worked” anywhere in the statute. Yet in construing statutes, we must be mindful that “words are to be given their plain and commonsense meaning.” (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1103.) In other words, we are not free to “give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the terms used.” (California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 11 Cal.4th 342, 349.)

Slip op., at 11.  After much analysis, the Court concluded that summary judgment was correctly granted:  "Consistent with the language of section 226 and the DLSE's May 17, 2002 opinion letter, United Retail's wage statements listed 'the precise, actual number of hours worked' by the employee at each hourly rate of pay in effect during the pay period."  Slip op., at 12.  You can't fault this panel for the work they did, construing statutory language, examining DLSE materials, looking at a wage statement exemplar on the DLSE's website, and analyzing the import of 1984 and 2000 legislation affecting section 226.

Other courts have been drawing their own lines around section 226 claims.  In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit, in Villacres v. ABM Industries Incorporated (June 17, 2010) (D.C. Case No. 2:07-cv-05327-VAP-OP), while not tackling the extent of injury required to satisfy section 226, was clear that the "intrusion upon the legally protected right" is not, in its view, sufficient to state a claim:

Villacres argued that violations of section 226(a) in and of themselves are injuries sufficient to make section 226(e) relief available to him and his proposed class. This is not how California courts typically have defined “injury.” See Steketee v. Lintz, Williams & Rothberg, 38 Cal. 3d 46, 54 (1985) (“‘Wrongful act’ and ‘injury’ are not synonymous.  The word ‘injury’ signifies both the negligent cause and the damaging effect of the alleged wrongful act and not the act itself.”)(citations omitted); Lueter v. California, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 68, 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (“Although the words ‘injury’ and ‘damage’ often are used interchangeably, a distinction may be made.  ‘Injury’ refers to the fact of harm suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s conduct.  ‘Damages’ refers to the monetary sum that the plaintiff may be awarded as compensation for injury.”). We have no reason to believe that the California Supreme Court would interpret section 226(e) differently. The district court did not err when it held that section 226(e) relief was unavailable to Villacres and his proposed class.

Memorandum, at 3.  It is interesting to note, however, that this panel's construction of the term "injury" is at odds with another Ninth Circuit panel's view on injury, expressed days later.  In Edwards v. First American Title Insurance (9th Cir. June 21, 2010), the Ninth Circuit, in a published opinion, found that "injury" existed in a RESPA case, despite the absence of an overcharge:  "Because the statutory text does not limit liability to instances in which a plaintiff is overcharged, we hold that Plaintiff has established an injury sufficient to satisfy Article III.  Slip op., at 9095.  Applying that same analysis to a 226 claim, once could see that same Edwards panel concluding that the violation of a protected right under 226 causes the necessary "injury" and the alternative damage clause (greater of actual damage or statutory damages) is triggered when no "actual" damage exists.

So the Ninth Circuit has figured out what it thinks the California Supreme Court would do were it faced with the injury issue raised by section 226.

Until the California Supreme Court decides to tell us what it thinks about any of this, we'll have to settle for Jaimez, Morgan, and the Ninth Circuit's prognostications. 

Why Apple is full of it

Today Apple held a news conference of sorts.   The ostensible purpose was to respond to concerns about the antenna design in the new iPhone 4.  The real purpose was to see if everyone is as stupid as Apple seems to think we are.

Consider just the following  two contentions about iPhone 4:

1. It has the best reception of any iPhone to date.
2. The iPhone 4 drops less than one additional call per 100 drops, when compared to the 3GS (according to AT&T data on call drops)

Apple attempted to use the second contention to describe the antenna problem as an illusory issue, suggesting that the drop rate is so close to the 3GS drop rate that it is just a part of life with a cell phone, and not a design error.  This is false.  Apple touted the antenna in the iPhone 4, and independent testing of the phone has confirmed that, when you aren't touching the call signal zone of death, the iPhone 4 has better reception than its predecessors.  This is not surprising, given the big external antennas on the iPhone 4.

But if the iPhone 4 has a substantially better antenna, it should show a noticeable improvement in the drop rate.  It does not.  Based on Apple's own claims, I have to conclude that the most probable explanation for these observed results is that the external antenna holds calls longer, but suffers precipitous signal failure.  In other words, the design flaw slightly overwhelms the overall improvement in the antenna over the long haul.  You will probably have fewer drops in high signal strength areas, but you will drop more calls in low signal strength areas if you hold the phone like any normal person would.

I have an iPhone 3GS.  It is a very nice phone.  I have looked appreciatively at the iPhone 4.  But I don't like being called an idiot, and my intended upgrade to the iPhone 4 is going on the back burner.  I will give Windows Phone 7 a very thorough examination before deciding whether to give Apple another chance.  This isn't a problem with all smartphones (I also have a Blackberry Bold 9700, which has no such problem - for that matter, neither does my iPhone 3GS).  This is apparently a problem with a phone that was designed first and foremost with materials and appearance in mind.

My advice to Apple:  if you are going to go to the trouble to hold a news conference to address a widely-reported potential flaw in the normal use-case design of one of your flagship products, don't view that time as your chance to offer contradictory assertions as you bitterly deny that anything unusual is going on with your new phone.  It is just insulting.  Just admit it, say you will work on a fabrication correction to the issue, and move on.  A bit of humility goes a long way with the average consumer; Apple evidently has none.  Here's your free rubber bumper (you crybabies).

Update on 2010-07-17 02:46 by The Complex Litigator

View videos provided from Apple.  Via Engadget.

Written contact with putative class members for purpose of finding new plaintiff is not solicitation under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-400

United States District Court Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) concluded that letters to putative class members seeking a new plaintiff were neither in violation of the Court's prior order governing class member contact nor a violation of California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-400, which governs solicitation.  Rand v. American National Insurance Company, 2010 WL 2758720 (N.D. Cal July 13, 2010).

In an earlier Order in that matter, the Court, in an effort to ensure protection of putative class members' privacy rights, instructed plaintiff's counsel to:

inform each policyholder at the outset of the initial contact that he or she has a right not to speak with counsel and that if he or she chooses not to speak with counsel, counsel will immediately terminate contact and not contact them again. Additionally, counsel will inform the policyholder that his or her refusal to speak with counsel will not prejudice his or her rights as a class member if the Court certifies a class. Finally, counsel is to keep a record for the Court of policyholders who make it known that they do not wish to be contacted.

Slip op., at 1.  After the death of the plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel sent a letter containing a first paragraph with substantially compliant language in the first paragraph.  The letter then went on to encourage contact to discuss the circumstances of annuity purchases.  The Court concluded that the inclusion of the disclaimer language in the first paragraph satisfied the Court's prior Order and was not an improper solicitation:

The Court also finds that the letter complies with California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-400. That rule defines “communication” as “any message or offer made by or on behalf of a member concerning the availability for professional employment....” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1-400(A). The rule defines “solicitation” as “any communication ... concerning the availability for professional employment of a member or a law firm in which a significant motive is pecuniary gain; and ... [w]hich is: (a) delivered in person or by telephone.” Id. at 1-400(B)(1)-(2). The rule generally prohibits “solicitations.” Id. at 1-400(C). As plaintiffs note, the letter was sent by mail, and thus it is not a “solicitation.” Defendant argues that because the letter invited policyholders to contact plaintiff's counsel by telephone, the letter is a “solicitation.” The Court disagrees, as the plain language of Rule 1-400(B) states that a solicitation is a communication “delivered” in person or by telephone. Here, the communication was delivered by mail. See Parris v. Superior Court, 109 Cal.App. 4th 285, 298 n. 6 (2003) (neither mail notice nor web site was “solicitation” under Rule 1-400(B)).

Slip op., at 2.

In Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., Court of Appeal reviews judgment in class action, clarifies "causation" in UCL "omission" cases

The opinion in Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co. (July 15, 2010) is hot off the presses and over 50 pages long.  Plaintiff Nelson sued Pearson Ford, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.), California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.)  The trial court certified the matter as a class action, with two classes: the backdating class and the insurance class. After a bench trial, the trial court found Pearson Ford not liable under the ASFA to the backdating class, but liable under the ASFA to the insurance class. It also found Pearson Ford liable to both classes under the UCL, but not the CLRA. The trial court issued certain remedies under the ASFA and the UCL, and awarded Nelson his attorney fees and costs under the ASFA. Both parties appealed.

With a 50-page-plus opinion, there is a lot to digest, but the comments regarding UCL "causation" are so valuable in and of themselves that I wanted to post them in full immediately:

A. Liability

The UCL defines "unlawful competition" to include an "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising . . . ." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) "By proscribing 'any unlawful' business practice, '[Business & Professions Code,] section 17200 "borrows" violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices' that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable." (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (Cel-Tech).) After the 2004 amendment of the UCL by Proposition 64, a private person has standing to sue only if he or she "'has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of [such] unfair competition.'" (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 305 (Tobacco II), citing Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204, italics added.) In the context of a class action, only the class representatives must meet Proposition 64's standing requirements of actual injury and causation. (Tobacco II, supra, at pp. 315-316.)

The actual payment of money by a plaintiff, as wrongfully required by a defendant, "constitute[s] an 'injury in fact' for purposes of Business and Professions Code section 17204. [Citations.]" (Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1347 (Troyk).) Causation for UCL standing purposes is satisfied if "a causal connection [exists] between the harm suffered and the unlawful business activity." (Daro v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1099 (Daro); accord, Troyk, supra, at p. 1349.) However, "[t]hat causal connection is broken when a complaining party would suffer the same harm whether or not a defendant complied with the law." (Daro, supra, at p. 1099.)

For example, in Troyk, an insured filed a class action against his automobile insurer alleging the insurer violated the UCL by requiring him to pay a service charge for payment of his automobile insurance policy premium and, because the service charge was not stated in his policy, the insurer violated Insurance Code section 381, subdivision (f), requiring that this be done. (Troyk, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314.) Although the Troyk court found that the insurer had violated the Insurance Code as alleged (id., at p. 1334), it concluded that causation under the UCL did not exist because plaintiff did not show that had the insurer disclosed the monthly service charges in the policy documents as required by the Insurance Code, he would not have paid them. (Id. at p. 1350.) Significantly, the lack of disclosure of proper charges, not illegal charges, violated the UCL in Troyk.

Here, the trial court impliedly found that Pearson Ford had violated the UCL as to both classes through its violations of the ASFA, and we have affirmed that Pearson Ford is liable for its violations of the ASFA. (Ante, part II.A.2.) Pearson Ford does not challenge the conclusion that its violations of the ASFA support Nelson's UCL claims; rather its appeal is limited to the trial court's finding that Nelson had standing to pursue claims under the UCL. Pearson Ford focuses its argument on whether Nelson suffered injury "as a result of" its unfair competition under the UCL. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) Relying on Troyk, Pearson Ford contends that Nelson needed to prove he would not have bought the car if he had known that the second contract: (1) charged him pre-consummation interest; (2) misstated the APR; and (3) failed to separately itemize the $250 insurance premium. We disagree.

The failure of Pearson Ford to comply with the ASFA caused Nelson to suffer an injury and lose money as to both classes because he paid pre-consummation interest (the backdating class), and paid sales tax and financing charges on the insurance premium (the insurance class). Unlike Troyk, these illegal charges violated the UCL and Pearson Ford improperly collected additional funds from Nelson. UCL causation exists because Nelson would not have paid pre-consummation interest, or sales tax and financing charges on the insurance premium had Pearson Ford complied with the ASFA. Because Nelson had standing to pursue claims under the UCL, we reject Pearson Ford's argument that the judgment in favor of both classes should be vacated to the extent it grants relief under the UCL.

Slip op., at 32-34.  This discussion adds some clarity to the situation where an unlawful act underlies the imposition of a charge or fee.  The plaintiff need not plead that the product or service wouldn't have been purchased had the truth been disclosed.  Instead, it is enough to plead that money was spent on the product or service and that the amount charged included some unlawful component that would not have been charged had the law been followed.  This won't resolve all cases alleging fraud or omissions, but it does offer some blunt guidance about so-called "causation" under the UCL.

I don't know if I will get around to posting more about Nelson, but you can follow the link above to peruse it yourself if automobile financing just gets you crazy with anticipation.

Ninth Circuit finds that propriety of independent contractor status is not well suited to summary adjudication in Narayan v. EGL, Inc.

In Narayan v. EGL, Inc. (July 13, 2010), the Ninth Circuit reviewed a district court order granting summary judgment to defendant EGL, Inc. on the theory that the plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees as contended in their lawsuit.  After examining choice of law issues, the Court turned to the showing required to obtain summary judgment on the employment-status issue.  In particular, the Court explained the special burdens in this type of action:

There are two special circumstances that are relevant to the application of this standard here. First, under California law, once a plaintiff comes forward with evidence that he provided services for an employer, the employee has establisheda prima facie case that the relationship was one of employer/employee. Robinson v. George, 105 P.2d 914, 917 (Cal. 1940). As the Supreme Court of California has held, “[t]he rule . . . is that the fact that one is performing work and labor for another is prima facie evidence of employment and such person is presumed to be a servant in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” Id. at 916; see also Cristler v. Express Messenger Sys., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 72, 83 (Ct. App. 2009). Once the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer, which may prove, if it can, that the presumed employee was an independent contractor. Cristler, 171 Cal. App. 4th at 84 (approving a jury instruction that “[t]he Defendant has the obligation to prove that the Plaintiffs were independent contractors”)

Slip op., at 10078.  The Court then discussed the employment test in California, saying:  "The Supreme Court of California has enumerated a number of indicia of an employment relationship, the most important of which is the 'right to discharge at will, without cause.' Borello, 769 P.2d at 404 (quoting Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd., 471 P.2d 975, 979 (Cal. 1970)).  Slip op., at 10079.  Incidentally, the right to discharge at will is concomitant with, and, to a large extent creates, the right to control.  The Court then listed the many additional employment test factors approved by Borello.  Such multi-factor tests, the Court concluded, don't lend themselves to summary adjudication:

Judge Easterbrook has keenly observed in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act that:

[i]f we are to have multiple factors, we should also have a trial. A fact-bound approach calling for the balancing of incommensurables, an approach in which no ascertainable legal rule determines a unique outcome, is one in which the trier of fact plays the principal part. That there is a legal overlay to the factual question does not affect the role of the trier of fact.

Sec’y of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1542 (7th Cir. 1987) (Easterbook, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted).

Slip op., at 10080-81.  The Court then reviewed the record, criticizing the trial court for not crediting evidence of the right to terminate at will set forth in the contracts between defendant and plaintiffs and other evidence consistent with employment, including the lack of any need for specialized training and the fact that the Internal Revenue Service declared the plaintiffs employees under its multi-factor employment test.

Judge Easterbrook received a number of nods from the Court.  In describing the policy goals of wage & hour statutes, the Court said:

As Judge Easterbrook observed in a closely analogous context, statutes enacted to confer special benefits on workers are “designed to defeat rather than implement contractual arrangements.” Sec’y of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1545 (7th Cir. 1987) (Easterbook, J., concurring).

Slip op., at 10073.  In other words, the protections granted by California's Labor Code are designed, in part, to defeat employer attempts to circumvent them with "independent contractor" agreements.