United States Ninth Circuit

In this putative class action challenging the California State Controller's application of California's Unclaimed Property Law (UCL), plaintiffs allege that the procedures used both before unclaimed property is transferred to the Controller (pre-escheat) and after it is transferred (post-escheat) violate their due process rights. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that the pre-escheat notice provided by the Controller was constitutionally inadequate because the Controller does not attempt to locate property owners using the data sources required by UCL section 1531. The district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiffs' argument was based on a misinterpretation of the statute, which relates only to post-escheatment procedures; 2) plaintiffs' suggested requirement that the Controller use additional databases exceeded due process requirements; 3) the argument that the Controller's pre-escheat notice process is inadequate because it is carried out by companies that receive a portion of the escheated value and therefore have a conflict of interest was not supported by law or the alleged facts; and 4) plaintiffs' challenge to the post-escheat procedure was not ripe for review.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/11/2015
• Published 03/11/2015

Judges

• Huck

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel