Zermeno

Zermeno v. Precis, Inc.

Good Law
103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 360·180 Cal. App. 4th 773·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 2066
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 2009B207674California2,600 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

Plaintiffs Manuela and Juan Zermeno appeal from the judgment entered for defendants in their unfair competition action after the trial court found that the pretrial settlement of their damage claims meant they no longer had standing to sue under the new standing requirements of Proposition 64. We hold that the changed standing rule was not intended to apply to cases pending when it took effect where a plaintiff had suffered actual injury as required by the new law, but settled that portion of its action before Proposition 64 took effect.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Manuela and Juan Zermeno joined a health care discount program offered by Care Entrée in December 2001. For a monthly fee of $54.95, deducted automatically from the Zermenos’ bank account, Care Entrée offered access to groups of health care providers who would charge discount rates. When three dentists identified on Care Entrée’s list of providers said they did not participate in the program and would not offer discounts, the Zermenos tried to cancel their membership in the program. Care Entrée did not terminate their membership for another year, however, and continued to withdraw the monthly fee from the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.