71 Cal.App.5th 644
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In June 2014 plaintiff Lana Sieu Ngu and her employee Thuc Ngoc Pham were arrested in related fireworks matters; Ngu posted her own bail through City Bail Bonds (defendants Mylinh and Ethan Kha).
- After Ngu’s release, Mylinh repeatedly urged Ngu to post bail for Pham (a co-arrestee), warned Pham might testify against Ngu, and arranged a meeting with Ngu’s former attorney, Robert Hsu.
- At the meeting Hsu and the Khas pressed Ngu to bail out Pham; Ngu eventually signed a bond and paid a total of $38,666 to secure Pham’s release (Pham’s bail was set at $500,000; defendants charged an ~8% fee).
- Ngu later pled no contest; Pham pled no contest and received probation and short jail time.
- Ngu sued under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), relying on a violation of Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, § 2079 (prohibiting solicitation of bail except from specified persons). After a bench trial the court awarded $38,666 in restitution; defendants appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding defendants unlawfully solicited Ngu to post a third party’s bail and that their conduct caused Ngu’s economic injury supporting UCL restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ngu) | Defendant's Argument (Kha) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2079 barred defendants from soliciting Ngu to post bail for a co-arrestee (Pham) | § 2079 permits solicitation only from arrestee, arrestee’s attorney, immediate family, or a person designated in writing; defendants solicited improperly | § 2080 allows negotiation with a person who requested the agent’s services, so because Ngu had requested services for herself, defendants could lawfully discuss Pham’s bail with her | Court: § 2079’s plain text and § 2079.1 foreclose that reading; defendants unlawfully solicited Ngu to post Pham’s bail |
| Whether Ngu established causation and economic injury for UCL restitution | Ngu only agreed and paid because of defendants’ repeated solicitation and pressure; thus she suffered economic loss caused by the unlawful practice | Any decision to bail Pham was independently supported by Hsu’s advice; also Ngu received a benefit (Pham’s release/possible silence), so she suffered no net loss | Court: substantial evidence supports causation; Hsu’s confirmation was not a superseding cause; benefit argument rejected because the transaction furthered unlawful purposes and cannot be enforced, so restitution proper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dolezal, 221 Cal.App.4th 167 (Court of Appeal) (regulations protect recent arrestees from harassment/overreaching by bail agents)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (California Supreme Court) (UCL plaintiff must show economic injury "as a result of" the unfair practice)
- Clark v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 605 (California Supreme Court) (restitution is the sole monetary remedy in private UCL actions)
- Crayton v. FCA US LLC, 63 Cal.App.5th 194 (Court of Appeal) (statutory/regulatory interpretation follows plain-meaning rules)
- Medina v. Safe-Guard Prods. Internat., Inc., 164 Cal.App.4th 105 (Court of Appeal) (no economic injury under UCL where plaintiff received the benefit of the bargain from an unlicensed insurer)
- Stockton Morris Plan Co. v. California Tractor & Equipment Corp., 112 Cal.App.2d 684 (Court of Appeal) (agreements that tend to promote unlawful acts are unenforceable)