Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> The UCL Practitioner

Class Action

: The UCL Practitioner

New federal decision interpreting Tobacco: Baghdasaarian v. Amazon.com, Inc.

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

In Baghdasaarian v. Amazon.com, Inc., ___ F.R.D. ___, 2009 WL 2263581 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2009), the court granted class certification of a UCL "fraudulent" prong claim, and followed Tobacco's holding that only the named class representative must satisfy the standing requirement:

Proposition 64 did not determine whether a plaintiff who has standing under the UCL must also show reliance by each class member. The California Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in the Tobacco II Cases. The California Supreme Court concluded that ?standing requirements are applicable only to the class representatives, and not all absent class members.? In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 206 (Cal.2009). Thus, Plaintiff does not need to show affirmative proof that each individual class member relied on Defendant's deceptive conduct.

Id. at *3.  The court's discussion of the individual plaintiff's standing is also interesting.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on August 04, 2009 (boomark / email).