Sepanossian v. Nat. Ready Mix Co., 97 Cal.App.5th 192

Plaintiff Gary Sepanossian (dba G.S. Construction) sued National Ready Mix alleging Ready Mix added uniform, separately itemized “energy” and “environmental” fees to concrete sales that had no relation to actual energy or environmental costs and were profit-enhancing.
Invoices and quotes show approximately $30 each per delivery for those fees; amounts were disclosed but not explained or tied to costs.
Sepanossian alleged the fee labels were misleading and induced payment; he sought class relief under the UCL (fraudulent and unfair prongs), breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
The trial court certified classes but invited a merits disposition before class notice; Ready Mix moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing the UCL and unjust enrichment claims; Sepanossian appealed (he did not appeal the contract claim dismissal).
The Court of Appeal reversed as to the UCL claims (holding plaintiff sufficiently pleaded both fraudulent and unfair prongs) and affirmed dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, remanding with directions to deny the motion as to the UCL and grant it as to unjust enrichment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether labeling fees “energy” and “environmental” is deceptive under the UCL (fraudulent prong)	Labels plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer into believing fees relate to actual energy/environmental costs when they do not	Labels alone are not affirmative misrepresentations and disclosure of amounts defeats deception claim	Reversed trial court: allegations suffice at pleading stage — a reasonable consumer could be misled absent disclosures tying labels to costs
Whether the fees are “unfair” under the UCL	Fees are mandatory, cause substantial harm, provide no countervailing benefit, and cannot be avoided by customers	Fees were disclosed before contracting, so injury was avoidable or consumers had notice	Reversed: allegations that fees were unavoidable and provided no benefit adequately plead unfairness at pleading stage
Whether separate unjust enrichment (restitution/quasi‑contract) claim is permitted despite express contracts	Recovery in restitution is appropriate because fees were obtained by deceptive/unfair means	Existence of enforceable form contracts bars quasi‑contract restitution; UCL already provides restitution remedy	Affirmed: unjust enrichment claim fails as a standalone cause; restitution is available under the UCL so separate claim unnecessary

Aron v. U-Haul Co. of California, 143 Cal.App.4th 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (labeling a fee “fueling fee” could mislead when fee isn't tied to actual refueling).
Wayne v. Staples, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (disclosure of the charged amount on a form can defeat deception on summary judgment).
Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal.App.4th 1327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (clear notice and ability to decline a service charge rebut unfairness/deception where charge corresponds to service received).
Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 202 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (reasonable consumer standard and that true statements can still mislead when material information is omitted).
Chapman v. Skype Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (questions of whether consumers are likely to be deceived are generally factual).
Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (restitution/quasi‑contract not available where enforceable express contract governs unless contract procured by fraud or unenforceable).
Collins v. eMachines, Inc., 202 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (where statutory and legal remedies are adequate, separate unjust enrichment claim for restitution is unnecessary).