Bardin

Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 4th 1255·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 227·2006 Daily Journal DAR 2181·39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 634·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1604
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 2006G034590California7,887 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

The trial court sustained defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation’s (DCC) demurrer to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint which alleged violations of the unfair competition law (UCL) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and sought declaratory relief. The alleged statutory violations were based on DCC’s use of tubular steel in the exhaust manifolds of certain of its vehicles instead of more durable and more expensive cast iron. We affirm because plaintiffs failed to state a claim under any of those causes of action.

There are two lines of appellate opinions addressing the definition of “unfair” within the meaning of the UCL in consumer actions. One line defines “unfair” as prohibiting conduct that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers and requires the court to weigh the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim. (Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 718-719 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 ] (Smith); Pastoria v. Nationwide Ins. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1498 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 ].) The other line of cases holds that the public…

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.