Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.
55 Cal. 4th 1185
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Aryeh, operating ABC Copy & Print, sued Canon for alleged unfair competition under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (UCL).
- Aryeh alleged Canon periodically charged for test copies during service visits, causing excess charges and late fees from 2002 onward.
- Plaintiff asserted the UCL claim could be saved from a limitations bar via continuing violation or continuous accrual theories.
- Trial court sustained demurrers, concluding the four-year statute of limitations barred the claim; Court of Appeal agreed.
- California Supreme Court held that UCL claims are governed by common law accrual rules, including continuous accrual, and remanded for further proceedings.
- Court rejected blanket application of the continuing violation doctrine to the UCL and allowed partial timely recovery for charges within four years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the UCL accrual follow common law rules? | Aryeh relies on traditional accrual rules applying to other claims. | Canon contends UCL accrual is fixed and not subject to continuous accrual or delayed discovery. | UCL accrual follows common law accrual rules. |
| Apply continuing violation doctrine to UCL claims? | Continuous, recurring overcharges may render some acts timely. | Continuing violation doctrine does not apply to UCL. | Continuing violation doctrine does not apply to Aryeh's UCL claim. |
| Apply theory of continuous accrual to UCL in this case? | Each recurring overcharge is a separate breach with its own limitations period. | No, continuous accrual should not save the claim. | Yes, continuous accrual applies; some acts within four-year period are timely. |
| Is the complaint entirely time-barred at demurrer stage? | Not entirely; timely acts within four years may survive. | All acts are barred by the four-year limit. | Not entirely barred; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2001) (last element accrual rule; accrual generally when elements occur)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (discovery rule and accrual timing guidance)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (standard for accrual and limitations)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (delayed discovery and accrual principles applied in demurrer context)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (continuing violations and accrual in recurring conduct)
- Broberg v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 171 Cal.App.4th 912 (Cal. Ct.App. 2009) (theory of continuous accrual applicable to UCL-like claims)
- Stutz Motor Car of America v. Reebok Intern., Ltd., 909 F.Supp.1353 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (federal decision cited regarding accrual concepts)
- Cel‑Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (UCL origins and scope; equitable remedies)
- Jefferson v. J. E. French Co., 54 Cal.2d 717 (Cal. 1960) (nature of the right sued determines accrual timing)