877 F. Supp. 2d 919
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Actions involve ABC Legal Services and process servers accused of sewer service; plaintiffs bring FDCPA, RFDCPA, and UCL claims; court considers motions to dismiss/strike/judgment on pleadings; focus is on UCL standing and injunctive relief; court treats as facial Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to standing; plaintiffs seek injunctive relief only under UCL; prior order referenced sewer service allegations and evidence of falsified documents; court ultimately dismisses UCL claims for lack of standing without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UCL standing for injunctive relief in federal court | Plaintiffs allege §17204 standing and likelihood of future harm | Hangarter requires Article III standing for injunctive relief in federal court | Plaintiffs lack Article III standing; UCL injunctive relief claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Availability of injunctive relief for non-UCL claims | Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief where applicable | Court should apply standing rulings to all claims | Denied as moot to the extent based on non-UCL claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012) (standing need not prove restitution eligibility to seek injunctive relief, but must show injury)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) (requires Article III standing for federal court UCL injunctive claims)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012) (duplicate entry for emphasis on standing rule)
- Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., 640 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (availability of injunctive relief under §17203 not contingent on restitution pleadings)
- Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (standing challenges may be raised on facial 12(b)(1) challenges)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (establishes core Article III standing requirements)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (real and immediate threat required for injunctive relief)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (injunctive relief requires real threat of future harm)