Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 865

Background

Higbee, law firm owner, sued EAS for unfair competition and related claims alleging unauthorized practice of law and misrepresentation through multiple websites.
EAS allegedly used unlicensed personnel and unbonded assistants to perform legal services, reducing Higbee’s market opportunities and revenue.
EAS conducted activities in California despite being a Delaware entity not licensed to practice law there.
Higbee claimed these practices violated Business and Professions Code sections 6125 et seq., 6400 et seq., and Penal Code section 4852.2, and violated the UCL.
Trial court sustained a demurrer to the UCL claim for lack of injury in fact; the case proceeded on other claims which were settled or dismissed; on appeal Higbee challenges only the demurrer as to the UCL first cause of action.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Higbee has standing under the UCL after Prop. 64 without direct dealings with EAS	Higbee alleges injury in fact and lost money/property from EAS’s unfair competition	Standing requires injury from direct dealings; Higbee lacks such dealings with EAS	No, Higbee has identifiable injury sufficient for standing despite no direct dealings.
Whether alleged unauthorized practice of law can support a UCL predicate violation	Unauthorized practice of law can support UCL as an unlawful act	UCL predicates require statutory violations; public protection is the focus	Yes; alleged UPL can serve as a predicate for UCL claim.
Whether Higbee’s asserted market-share-like injury satisfies injury in fact and causation	Loss of revenue, lower prices, and diminished firm value show injury in fact caused by EAS	Market-share loss alone is insufficient without concrete causation and injury	Identifiable trifle of injury established; causation alleged to connect unlawful practices to Higbee’s losses.
Whether causation can be asserted without direct business dealings between Higbee and EAS	Causation can be shown by injury caused by unlawful conduct, not required to be through direct dealings	Without direct dealings, causation link is too conjectural	Causation adequately alleged; lack of direct dealings does not bar standing.
Scope of remedies under Prop. 64 and UCL standing for ongoing injunctive relief	UCL standing supports injunctive relief to deter ongoing unlawful practices	Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a stand-alone cause of action; focus remains on standing	Court addresses injunctive relief as remedy; standing suffices to permit action.

Key Cases Cited

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (standing requires injury in fact; not necessarily restitution eligibility)
Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC, 39 Cal.4th 223 (Cal. 2006) (Prop. 64 narrowed standing under the UCL)
Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 1998) (UCL stands as predicate for unlawful acts; consumer/public protection context)
Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal.4th 758 (Cal. 2010) (Preservation of standing for injury even when direct dealings absent; statutory text sufficient)
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) (standing and broad reach of UCL against unlawful practices)
Saunders v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. 1994) (illustrates UCL standing where competitor injury and pricing practices impacted)
Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., 640 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (market injury can support UCL standing even without patent rights)
VP Racing Fuels, Inc. v. General Petroleum Corp., 613 F.Supp.2d 1073 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (loss of market share can support UCL standing; injuries need not be patent-based)
Saunders v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. 1994) (undercutting deposition pricing can support UCL claim)
Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 196 Cal.App.4th 1545 (Cal. 2011) (injury must be concrete and particularized; not mere conjecture)