California Court of Appeal

In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant-Cruise Line brought under the California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), over charges added to the price of shore excursions taken during a cruise, trial court's order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in concluding that the CLRA cause of action was barred by Civil Code 1781(c); 2) a plaintiff asserting UCL, FAL and CLRA must show that he or she relied on the defendant's misrepresentations; 3) plaintiffs did not rely on any representations made by defendants; 4) there are no material questions of fact about the cost of excursions.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/10/2009
• Published 11/10/2009

Judges

• FLIER, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Kaye, Rose & Partners, Bradley M. Rose, Carolyn J. Kaye, Aksana Moshaiv and André M. Picciurro, San Diego, for Petitioner., Bailey Law Group, Mohammed K. Ghods and William A. Stahr, Santa Ana, for Real Parties in Interest.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.