Plaintiff opened a credit card account with defendant Bank and purchased a "credit protector" plan. Under the Plan, the Bank agreed to defer or to credit certain amounts on Plaintiff’s credit card account when a qualifying event occurred, such as long-term disability, unemployment, divorce, military service, or hospitalization. The Bank charged a monthly premium for the Plan based on the amount of Plaintiff’s credit card balance. Later, Plaintiff filed aclass action claim based on the Bank's marketing of the Plan and the handling of a claim she made under it when she lost her job. The operative complaint alleges claims under the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law, as well as the Insurance Code.
Plaintiff purchased oa 2006 “preowned” Mercedes–Benz S500V. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by making false representations about the condition of the automobile. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant violated several other California laws by (1) failing to separately itemize the amount of the down payment that is deferred to a date after the execution of the sale contract, (2) failing to distinguish registration, transfer, and titling fees from license fees, (3) charging the optional Department of Motor Vehicles electronic filing fee without discussing it or asking if he wanted to pay it, (4) charging new tire fees for used tires, and (5) requiring him to pay $3,700 to have the vehicle certified so he could qualify for the 4.99 percent interest rate, when that payment was actually for an optional extended warranty unrelated to the interest rate. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act, the Unfair Competition Law, the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and Public Resources Code section 42885.
A small dental implant company that had net profits of $101,000 in 1998 sued a university for breach of a contract for the university to clinically test a new implant the company had patented. The company sought damages for lost profits beginning in 1998, ranging from $200 million to over $1 billion. It claimed that, but for the university’s breach of the contract, the company would have become a worldwide leader in the dental implant industry and made many millions of dollars a year in profit.
Plaintiff transferred a home-management business to a newly created Company. A separate entity wholly owned by Plaintiff had a 20 percent interest in the new Company. The transactions involved six agreements: (1) a limited liability company (LLC) agreement creating the new Company; (2) a stock purchase agreement; (3) an employment agreement by which the Company employed Plaintiff as its president; (4) a covenant not to compete and confidentiality agreement between Plaintiff and the Company; (5) a consulting agreement; and (6) a guaranty agreement of a promissory note payable by Company to Plaintiff. Problems arose after the execution of the agreements, resulting in Plaintiff’s discharge from his employment with Company. Complaints and cross-complaints were filed asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, unjust enrichment, and inducement of breach of contract.