What is the Unfair Practices Act (UPA)?

The Unfair Practices Act (UPA) is codified at Business & Professions Code sections 17000, et seq. The purpose of the UPA “is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17001.)

It prohibits specific “practices which the legislature has determined constitute unfair trade practices.” (Wholesale T. Dealers v. National etc. Co., 11 Cal.2d 639, 643.) “This chapter shall be liberally construed that its beneficial purposes may be subserved.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17002.)

A complaint under the Unfair Practices Act must state facts supporting the statutory elements of the alleged violation. (See G.H.I.I. v. MTS (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 256, (allegations of secret rebates, locality discrimination, sale below cost, and loss leaders; complaint was sufficient); Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 (demurrer properly sustained where complaint identified no particular statutory section that was violated and failed to describe with reasonable particularity facts supporting violation).)

"It is unlawful for any manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, jobber, contractor, broker, retailer, or other vendor, or any agent of any such person, jointly to participate or collude with any other such person in the violation of this chapter." (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17048).

Remedies

The consequences of violating the Unfair Practices Act can be quite severe.

A prevailing plaintiff may receive treble damages and attorney fees. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17082).

The act even provides criminal sanctions. Any person who violates the act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and six months' imprisonment. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17100.)

Contexts

Breach of fiduciary duty has been applied in many contexts. Here are a few.

  • The prohibition against purposeful below-cost sales. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17043.) "‘Article or product' includes any article, product, commodity, thing of value, service or output of a service trade.’ (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17024.)
  • The prohibition against loss leaders. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17044.)
  • Secret rebates. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17045; G.H.I.I. v. MTS (1983) 147 C.A.3d 256, 271; ABC Internat. Traders, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1247.)
  • Locality discrimination. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17040; G.H.I.I. v. MTS (1983) 147 C.A.3d 256, 271.)

Useful Rulings on Unfair Practices Act

Recent Rulings on Unfair Practices Act

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

They also allege that the failure of the City and County to provide basic shelter to the homeless is a breach of their duty under section 17000 to provide medical services to the indigent. Petitioners cite no legal authority for the proposition that section 17000 requires counfies to provide shelter to homeless persons as part of their obligation to provide medically necessary care to the indigent. (Woods, supra, 167 Cal.App.4"' 658, 677.) Indeed, the law appears to be otherwise. (See, e.g., Scates v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

They also allege that the failure of the City and County to provide basic shelter to the homeless is a breach of their duty under section 17000 to provide medical services to the indigent. Petitioners cite no legal authority for the proposition that section 17000 requires counties to provide shelter to homeless persons as part of their obligation to provide medically necessary care to the indigent. (Woods, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 658, 677.) Indeed, the law appears to be otherwise. (See, e.g., Scates v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MELE HAMALA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK SOUTHWEST, N,A,, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to "safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented." Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

YOUNG VS. PARRY

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under [Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

XIAOHONG M. BROUTHERS VS MANHATTAN HOUSE, LP, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to "safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented." Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

TINA CHOI VS PBK AMERICA, A CALIFORNIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to “safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BEACON POINTE WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC V. GARY DORFMAN

Business and Professions Code section 16602.5 was originally enacted as part of the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act (BK LLC Act), former Corporations Code section 17000 et seq. (West’s Ann. Corp. Code (2020 ed.) appen. § 17000 et seq.; Stats. 1994, ch. 1200, § 27.) The BK LLC Act is organized, and uses terminology at times different from the current California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (RULLCA), Corporations Code section 17701.01 et seq., enacted in 2012.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

ALLADAWI VS. PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under [Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the fact supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.) The unfair competition law “governs ‘anti-competitive business practices’ as well as injuries to consumers, and has as a major purpose ‘the preservation of fair business competition.’ [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

PAKES VS. GILFORD

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under [Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the fact supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

ALLADAWI VS. PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under [Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the fact supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. VS BIG BUS TOURS LOS ANGELES, INC., ET AL.

First Cause of Action: Unfair Competition The Unfair Practices Act, codified in Business and Professions Code 17000 et seq., prohibits sales below cost, locality discrimination, and secret rebates or unearned discounts which injure competition. The Unfair Competition Law, codified in Business and Professions Code section 17200, prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see Clark v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 605, 610.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JUAN RODRIGUEZ V. JAMES SHEPARD

The complaint alleges violations of the Labor Code and the Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17000, et seq.). On September 20, 2019, Shepard served by mail a first set of form interrogatories and requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) on Plaintiff. Responses were due on October 25, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2031.260, 2016.050.) Prior to that Plaintiff requested, and was given, an extension to November 1, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

BABAK RAZI ET AL VS ALIREZA MAHDAVI ET AL

Code §§ 17000 et seq.) Moving Defendants argue that the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act does not supplant Beverly-Killea pertaining to acts occurring before January 1, 2014. (See Corp. Code § 17713.04 (b).) Plaintiffs disagree, and argue that the new statute applies since the cause accrued in 2014 and the lawsuit was filed in 2015. Assuming the Beverly-Killea Act applies, Moving Defendants have not met their burden of persuasion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MJ GLOBAL ENTERRPISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS SUSAN HEO, ET AL.

Plaintiffs point to the allegations in the FAC that the Tower Defendants violated the “Escrow Law,” Financial Code section 17000, et seq. (FAC, ¶ 109.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege violations of Financial Code section 17403.3, subdivision (a), which provides that “[a]t the time of execution a copy of each escrow instruction or amended or supplemental escrow instruction shall be delivered to all persons executing the same.” ((Fin. Code, § 17403.3, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

EMERZIAN V. WILSONART, LLC, ET AL.

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes [California Business & Professions Code §§ 17000 et seq. and 17200 et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 619.) Here, it is difficult to determine what element of the cause of action defendants assail. Defendants both cite authority regarding a person’s standing to bring a UCL claim.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JAMES W MENEFIELD III ET AL VS FINANCIAL FREEDOM SENIOR FUND

The signatures for the tracking numbers are by one “Olivia Rogers” at the address 17000 Gillette Ave., which is MTC’s corporate office. (Opposition at pp. 9–10.) Menefield thus argues that the notices of sale were not sent to the trustee as purported in the declaration, but rather falsely mailed to the MTC office. (Motion at pp. 6–7.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

LANOTTE V. PAINTBRUSH, LLC, ET AL.

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes [California Business and Professions Code sections 17000 et seq. and 17200 et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 619.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NICOLE A. SERUTO VS NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to “safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Code §17000, et seq., its purpose is to “safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. This statutory scheme, while involving a violation of regulatory law, provides also a private right of action. Stop Youth Addiction v.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

COLOREDGE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, VS EDIE GELARDI, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL.

Code §§14100, 14102, 17000 et seq. While the third harm most closely implicates the applicability of CUTSA, and may be reason for Plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege additional causes of action based on the CUTSA, the other harms alleged are sufficient to maintain the causes of action in the complaint independently of alleged misappropriated of Plaintiff’s proprietary information.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARTHA SALAZAR VS SUPERIOR GROCERS ET AL

Plaintiff is to provide supplemental responses giving facts as to how Defendant violated each of the Health and Safety Code sections Plaintiff identified as at issue, including sections 17000 – 19997, 57050, 57053, 13113.7, 17958.3, 116049.1, and 116064. If Plaintiff does not truly contend each of those sections were violated, Plaintiff is to identify the specific sections actually violated. Nos. 42 through 46, 58, 60 ask about violations of OSHA, as alleged in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2019

BOLDT V. RANCHO ADOBE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

They rely first on Government Code section 850.4, which provides immunity “for any injury caused in fighting fires” but “except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code….” Vehicle Code sections 17000, et seq., is the article governing liability of public agencies and their employees for death or injuries which an employee of a public entity negligently causes during the course and scope of employment.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

CMC DIRT WORKS INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The basis for this ruling is set forth below. 1st COA: Conspiracy to Violate Unfair Practices Act The "Unfair Practices Act" ("UPA") is codified at Business & Professions Code sections 17000, et seq. The purpose of the UPA "is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented."

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CMC DIRT WORKS INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The basis for this ruling is set forth below. 1st COA: Conspiracy to Violate Unfair Practices Act The "Unfair Practices Act" ("UPA") is codified at Business & Professions Code sections 17000, et seq. The purpose of the UPA "is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented."

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CREATIVE SUPPORT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS LEVEL UP SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.

Code § 17000 et seq.)] must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.) i. Remedy “While the scope of conduct covered by the UCL is broad, its remedies are limited. [Citation.] A UCL action is equitable in nature; damages cannot be recovered . . . . We have stated that under the UCL, ‘[p]revailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.’”

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.