We routinely litigate appeals raising claims under various consumer protection statutes. We have particular expertise in responding to claims under the Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.), and we have filed briefs in the California Supreme Court in many of the path-breaking UCL cases, including In re Tobacco Cases II (Brown) (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, In re Tobacco Cases II (Daniels) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257, Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, and Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254.
In addition to our in-depth work on UCL cases, we handle cases for defendants facing claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), the Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA), the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the False Claims Act (FCA), the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.), and more.
Contact Lisa Perrochet or John A. Taylor, Jr. for more information about our Consumer Law practice.
Riskin v. Downtown LA Property Owners Association
California Court of Appeal reverses attorney fees award in California Public Records Act case.Read More
Berroteran v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court limits a party’s right to introduce in a later case deposition testimony obtained in an earlier caseRead More
Mallonee v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
California Court of Appeal affirms order cutting attorney fees request by 85 percent in lemon law actionRead More
Blasco v. FCA
California Court of Appeal affirms nonsuit on punitive damages in lemon law caseRead More
Covert v. FCA USA, LLC
California Court of Appeal reverses $200,000 attorney fees and costs award in lemon law actionRead More
Fishback v. FCA
Court of Appeal holds that trial court was not required to “show its work” when reducing or disallowing plaintiff’s attorney feesRead More
Khoshnevis v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
California Court of Appeal affirms order shifting costs to plaintiff who failed to recover more than defendant’s settlement offerRead More
Ruiz Nunez v. FCA USA LLC
Court of Appeal limits express warranty claims against auto manufacturers for failed repairs and holds they owe no implied warranty on sales of used carsRead More
Montoya v. Ford
Court of Appeal reverses judgment for plaintiff in lemon law case, rejecting statute of limitations tolling based on plaintiff’s membership in successively filed class actionsRead More
Kealy v. Ford Motor Credit Company
Horvitz & Levy obtains reversal of jury verdict finding Ford Credit responsible for erroneous credit reporting and secures an affirmance of the dismissal of plaintiff’s Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL) claim before trialRead More
Zubin v. Toyota Motor Sales
Court of Appeal affirms favorable judgment for Toyota in Lemon Law case.Read More
Steele v. Bell-Carter Foods
California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in products liability and warranty action against olive producer.Read More
Sarkisyan v. Newport Insurance Company
Court of Appeal affirms denial of class certification in favor of insurance company based on plaintiff’s failure to prove existence of ascertainable class and sufficient community of interestRead More
RunflatAmerica, LLC v. Michelin North America, Inc. et al.
California Court of Appeal rules for defendants in a shareholder derivative action brought by the former CEO of a company, who alleged his company should have sued the defendants for perceived business torts.Read More
Cryoport Systems v. CNA Insurance Companies et al.
California Court of Appeal holds that a plaintiff without standing of its own under Proposition 64 may not conduct discovery to find a substitute plaintiff in order to keep a UCL action alive.Read More
Tutor-Saliba-Perini v. Metropolitan Transit Authority
California Court of Appeal reverses $60 million False Claims Act judgment against construction contractor.Read More
Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
California Supreme Court holds that replacement or restitution remedy is not required under California’s lemon law for breach of a service contract.Read More
Viking River v. Moriana
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California's Iskanian rule, which prevents arbitration of representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act.Read More
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California unconscionability standard that invalidates arbitration procedures to the extent they unduly favor one party over the other, and that in any event such arbitration procedures are not unconscionable under state law because they do not shock the conscience.Read More
Nelson v. Pearson Ford
California appellate brief explaining construction of the Auto Sales Finance Act and Unfair Competition Law; challenging a judgment in favor of class action plaintiffs who claimed that aspects of an auto dealer's purchase contracts constituted statutory violations that allowed buyers to both keep possession of their cars and obtain a windfall refund of the purchase payments for the cars.Read More
Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that insurers provide neither "goods" nor "services," and thus are not subject to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.Read More
In re Tobacco II (Brown)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that, under the UCL standing requirements imposed after Proposition 64, a trial court properly denies class certification where standing cannot readily be ascertained by litigation of common questions of law and fact, and courts should not create presumptions of consumer reliance to satisfy the commonality requirement for class certification.Read More