California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Zermeno v. Precis, Inc., B207674

In plaintiffs' unfair competition action against defendants-healthcare discount program providers, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the pre-trial settlement of plaintiffs' damage claims meant they no longer had standing to sue under the new standing requirements of Proposition 64 is reversed and remanded as the changed standing rule was not intended to apply to cases pending when it took effect where a plaintiff had suffered actual injury as required by the new law, but settled that portion of its action before Proposition 64 took effect.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 12/23/2009
  • Published 12/23/2009


  • RUBIN, Acting P.J.


  • California Court of Appeal


  • For Appellant:
  • Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, David Pallack, Pacoima, Joshua Stehlik, Jose O. Tello and Christina Ku;  Los Angeles Center for Law & Justice and Hellen Hong, for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Western Center on Law and Poverty, Richard A. Rothschild, Los Angeles, and Jennifer A. Flory;  National Health Law Program and Randolph T. Boyle;  National Immigration Law Center, Linton Joaquin, Los Angeles, and Sonal Ambegaokar, for Amici Curiae.

  • For Appellees:
  • Mayer Brown, Philip R. Recht, Christopher P. Murphy and Francisco Ochoa, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.
Copied to clipboard