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

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Class Action

: The UCL Practitioner

Recent UCL "fraudulent" prong decision: Levine v. Blue Shield of California

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

ADVERTISEMENTS

We have been having a slow period for new UCL- and class-action-related cases. So here's an older case on which I hadn't previously reported.

In Levine v. Blue Shield of California, 189 Cal.App.4th 1117 (Nov. 5, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) stated without analysis that a UCL "fraudulent" prong claim predicated on an omission (as opposed to an affirmative misrepresentation) does not lie absent a duty to disclose. Id. at 1136 (citing Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal.App.4th 981, 986 (2008)). (Here's my post from 2008 on the Buller decision, in which I explained that the idea that an omissions claim must involve a duty to disclose is a recent development and not quite so well settled as some assume.)

The court also applied the post-Cel-Tech formulation of "unfair," without mentioning the three-way split in authority that continues to persist on this issue. Id. at 1137 (citing Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1366 (2010). (See this post for more on the split.)

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on January 05, 2011 (boomark / email).