Smith Chevrolet v. Superior Court CA5

INTRODUCTION

This writ proceeding concerns the meaning and effect of our decision in Paz v. Sanders Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. (Jan. 9, 2007, F048438 [nonpub. opn.]) and whether the trial court should have dismissed this lawsuit pursuant to the statutes that require an action to be brought to trial within three years after an appellate court has reversed and remanded for a new trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.320, subd. (a)(3) & 583.360, subd. (a).) Specifically, we must determine or, more accurately, clarify whether our 2007 decision remanded the action for a new trial for purposes of the dismissal statutes. Our 2007 decision determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing and reversed the judgment that held the defendants violated California‟s unfair competition law (UCL).1 In addition, we “remanded to the trial court for such proceedings as may be appropriate pursuant to Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235 [(Branick)].” (Paz v. Sanders Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc, supra, F048438, at p. 20.) The Branick decision held that (1) plaintiffs who lost standing as a result of the passage of Proposition 64 were not barred from seeking leave to amend their UCL claims…