In 2006, when California voters passed Proposition 64 as a measure designed to prevent sham lawsuits brought California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL), corporate defendants quickly capitalized on the ambiguity of the new standing requirements in an attempt to further limit the scope of the statutes’ protective schemes. However, since Proposition 64’s passage, the California Supreme Court has narrowed its effect on standing requirements, first in its decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), and now in its recent decision in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011), such that a UCL or FAL action may now proceed on a class-wide basis merely on a class representative’s allegations of economic injury and reliance.
[Read More]

Employees Entitled to Two Premium Payments for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks
By ABI GNANADESIGAN, ESQ.

In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, clarified that California Labor Code Section 226.7 allows Plaintiffs to recover two premium payments when both a meal and rest period are missed on the same day. In United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 1043 (2011), the Court analyzed the language of Labor Code Section 226.7, which provides:
[Read More]

Almost exactly two years after the decision in Wyeth v. Levine the Supreme Court was left to make another decision on preemption. On March 30, 2011 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Pliva, Incorporated v. Mensing and the consolidated cases. The question presented before the Court was whether state law products liability claims brought by injured patients against manufacturers of generic drugs was preempted by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”). Although not exactly the same issue addressed in Wyeth , it still deals with the responsibility of manufacturers with regard to the labeling of their products.
[Read More]