Supreme Court of California

A plaintiff has no standing to sue under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) without some allegation that he or she has been damaged by an alleged unlawful practice. In a case in which plaintiffs sued defendant-cellular telephone company alleging that its arbitration agreement and other remedial provisions were unconscionable, an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs did not allege that the provisions at issue had been enforced against them or caused them damage, and thus they lacked standing under the CLRA; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 was not appropriate under the circumstances.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/29/2009
• Published 01/29/2009

Judges

• MORENO, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Law Offices of Anthony A. Ferrigno, Anthony A. Ferrigno;  Franklin & Franklin and J. David Franklin, San Diego, for Plaintiffs and Appellants., The Sturdevant Law Firm, James C. Sturdevant and Monique Olivier, San Francisco, for National Association of Consumer Advocates as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Reed Smith, Michele Floyd, Raymond A. Cardozo and Dennis Peter Maio, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent., Robin S. Conrad;  Mayer Brown and Donald M. Falk, Palo Alto, for United States Chamber of Commerce as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.