The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Plaintiffs’ Equitable Claims Under the UCL and FAL Statutes
Legal Background
The UCL prohibits unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair business practices. Because the UCL statute is written in the disjunctive, liability can be established under any of these three prongs. (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is based on all three prongs of the UCL statute. Plaintiffs also seek recovery for defendants’ false advertising under the FAL. Because the UCL and FAL claims are equitable claims, they are tried to the Court, not the jury.
Plaintiffs’ unlawful practices claim is based on ABC’s violations of the underlying staffing requirements, including Health and Safety Code sections 1276.5 and 1599.1.
Plaintiffs’ fraudulent practices claim is based on ABC’s statements and conduct that were likely to deceive the public into believing that ABC provides adequate nursing staff and complies with the state-mandated minimum of 3.2 PPD. The same evidence of misrepresentations and omissions under plaintiffs’ CLRA claim provides an independent basis for liability under the fraudulent practice prong.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Plaintiffs’ unfair practices claim is based on ABC’s practice of regularly understaffing its facilities and manipulating its staffing records to deceive regulators and the consuming public into believing that its facilities are adequately staffed.
Remedies Under the UCL and FAL
The UCL and FAL claims provide an additional basis for injunctive relief and restitution. Plaintiffs seek an injunction that compels ABC to provide adequate staffing as required under California law. Plaintiffs also seek restitution. And Plainitffs’ monetary relief under the UCL and FAL are subject to trebling under Civil Code section 3345. (Hood, 567 F.Supp.2d at pp. 1127-28.) The District Attorney (but not the class plaintiffs) may also recover civil penalties under these statutes. Finally, given the nature of the violations, Civil Code section 3345 authorizes a trebling of the amount of restitution and civil penalties.
PROPOSED TRIAL SEQUENCE
Plaintiffs propose that trial proceed in four phases, as follows: Phase I: Jury Trial on Legal Claims. In this phase, the jury would hear evidence pertaining to and render a verdict with respect to plaintiffs’ Section 1430(b) and CLRA claims. The jury would also determine whether plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages. (See Part 7 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.