Rosenbluth International, Inc. v. Superior Court

Under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), 1 a private plaintiff who has itself suffered no injury may file an action for restitution and/or injunctive relief against a person or business entity alleged to be engaged in any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” (§ 17200.) As our courts have liberally construed the UCL, virtually the only limitation on such actions is that the plaintiff must be acting on behalf of “itself, its members or the general public.” (§ 17204.) In this proceeding, we hold that the purported victims in this case, all large Fortune 1000 corporations that have individually negotiated written contracts with the defendant, are not the “general public” for purposes of the UCL.

Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiff, Jose Serrano, filed this action on August 23, 2001. Purporting to act on his own behalf and “for the interests of the general public under the *1076 Unfair Competition Law,” Serrano alleges that Rosenbluth International, Inc., a travel agency serving large corporate clients, uses fraudulent accounting methods in order to understate significantly the amount of rebates, or…

I would deny the mandate petition. The respondent court correctly decided that there is a triable issue as to whether *1080 plaintiff, Jose Serrano, has standing to pursue the Unfair Practices Act claim against defendant, Rosenbluth International, Inc. Further, the trial court could conclude that defendant’s unreasonable refusal to respond to interrogatories, production demands, and admissions requests warranted denial of the summary judgment motion.

First, in terms of the merits, my views in this regard are premised on the express language of the Unfair Practices Act. Business and Professions Code section 17204 expressly provides, “Actions for any relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction by . . . any person acting for the interests of . . . the general public.” (Italics omitted; Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 560-567 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 , 950 P.2d 1086 ]; AICCO, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 579, 591-592 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 359 ].) The purpose of the Unfair Practices Act is described in pertinent part as follows: “The Legislature declares that the…