Pratt

Pratt v. Jack in the Box CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 31, 2014A139960California4,478 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 12/31/14 Pratt v. Jack in the Box CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

KENNETH PRATT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

A139960

v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., et al., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12647437) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Kenneth Pratt and Cleo Dixon (collectively, plaintiffs), acting in propria persona (pro. per.), filed a putative class action against defendant Jack in the Box, Inc., and others (collectively, defendants) alleging that defendants overcharged them for a small combination meal that was upgraded to include large fries and a large drink. On appeal from a judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs contend the trial court (1) erred in denying their peremptory challenge to the assigned judge, (2) abused its…

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.