CRYOPORT SYSTEMS v. CNA Ins. Companies

Good Law
149 Cal. App. 4th 627·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 520·2007 D.A.R. 4785·2007 Daily Journal DAR 4785·57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 358
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 2007G037056California2,321 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Leary, J.

Cryoport Systems (Cryoport) sued CNA Insurance Companies, Continental Casualty Company, and Valley Forge Insurance Company (hereafter collectively and in the singular CNA), for violation of the unfair competition law (UCL). (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) CNA’s demurrer to the original complaint was sustained, with leave to amend, because Cryoport failed to allege standing (i.e., that it suffered injury in fact and lost money or property) as required by Proposition 64’s amendments to the UCL. (§ 17204, as amended by Prop. 64, § 3; see also § 17203, as amended by Prop. 64, § 2.) In its amended complaint, Cryoport again failed to allege its own standing and CNA’s demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. On appeal from the judgment dismissing its complaint, Cryoport argues reversal is required so it may attempt to amend its complaint to substitute in a new plaintiff who in fact has standing to pursue the action. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS

Proposition

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (§ 17200.) Although previously any person acting for the general public could sue for relief from…

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.