Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinion in Loeffler v. Target Corporation, a case in which review was granted more than four and a half years ago. The original issue presented is whether article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution or Revenue and Taxation Code section 6932 bars a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, section 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable. But the court twice asked for supplemental briefing.
A year ago, the court requested the parties to address whether and, if so, in what manner the doctrine of primary jurisdiction (see Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917, 931-937) appropriately may be invoked and applied in the present case, including whether the issue was preserved in the trial and appellate courts and whether article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution would be implicated by applying the doctrine. This past December, the court asked for briefing on these questions: (1) May a cause of action be brought under the UCL (see Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) or CLRA (see Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) based on an allegation that a retailer misrepresented that it was collecting an amount as tax reimbursement when in fact the retailer failed to remit the amount to the Board of Equalization? (2) If so, do the allegations in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint state a cause of action under the UCL or CLRA on this theory, and, if not, should plaintiffs be afforded an opportunity to amend their complaint to state such causes of action?
This is not one of the cases which will include retired Justice Kennard as a pro tem justice. She was recused when the case was heard before her retirement.
Loeffler was argued in February. There are still three other February calendar cases that have yet to be decided — People v. Moffett and People v. Gutierrez (which were consolidated) and People v. Hajek and Vo. Expect to see opinions in those cases this Monday, which is the deadline for filing within the 90-day rule.
The Loeffler opinion can be viewed online tomorrow beginning at 10:00 a.m.
