Antonio Hinojos v. Kohl's Corporation
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10185
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hinojos purchased Kohl’s merchandise advertised as substantially reduced from an alleged higher “original” price.
- He alleges Kohl’s false price advertising misled him into buying items he would not have purchased otherwise.
- District court dismissed UCL and FAL claims for lack of standing under Prop. 64 because Hinojos kept the goods at the advertised price.
- District court also dismissed the CLRA claim for lack of standing; Hinojos appealed.
- California Supreme Court Kwikset held standing for false labeling when misrepresentation induced a purchase; court considered its applicability to false sale advertising.
- Court held that Kwikset applies broadly to permit standing where a consumer would not have bought the product but for the misrepresentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hinojos has standing under UCL and FAL for false sale advertising | Hinojos alleges economic injury from misrepresentation of price | Kohl’s contends no injury since price paid matched advertised price | Yes; Kwikset-based standing applies to false sale advertising |
| Whether Hinojos has CLRA standing under any damages | Any damage includes pecuniary loss from misrepresentation | CLRA requires proof of damage beyond benefit of the bargain | Yes; any damage includes economic injury from misleading ads |
| Whether Kwikset applies beyond product origin/composition misrepresentations | Kwikset supports standing for misleading price representations | Kwikset should be limited to origin/composition misrepresentations | Yes; Kwikset applies to false price advertising that induces purchase |
| Whether to certify the state-law standing questions to California Supreme Court | N/A | N/A | Denied; certification denied on merits and due to timing/appropriateness; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (standing for UCL/FAL when misrepresentation induces purchase)
- Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 45 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 2009) (broad interpretation of CLRA “any damage”)
- Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 202 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Cal. App. 2012) (economic injury under UCL implies CLRA injury)
- Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., 2011 WL 1497096 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (briefly cited re economic injury/standing)
- Mazaha v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (Article III injury; economic injury suffices for standing)
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) (UCL’s borrowing of other laws; unfair competition)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing generally requires injury-in-fact)
- Nelson v. Brunswick Corp., 503 F.2d 376 (9th Cir. 1974) (California choice of law in diversity cases)