Procedural Posture 4
Plaintiff customer sought to pursue a class action on behalf of California electricity customers against defendants, parties involved in restructuring California's electricity market. He alleged unlawful business practices in violation of the unfair competition law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, sustained defendants' demurrers and dismissed the complaint. The customer appealed.
Overview:
The customer argued that he was entitled to seek restitution, which he defined as any money defendants or their conspirators received. He disavowed any attempt to recover utility overcharges but argued that the court should order defendants to return what was wrongfully taken, plus any profits made. The court found that the complaint failed to allege a viable restitution claim. The court rejected the customer's sophistry if he meant to suggest he could recover the same money under a different label and also rejected the application of restitution in the broad sense, which would have focused on defendants' unjust enrichment, rather than the customer's loss. In the UCL context, restitution meant the return of money to those persons from whom it was taken. The court found no merit in the argument that nonrestitutionary disgorgement of wrongfully-obtained profits was recoverable under the UCL in the context of a class action. The customer also failed to present a viable claim for injunctive relief because the complaint did not allege any facts indicating that another incident was likely to occur. Injunctive relief was appropriate only when there was a threat of continuing misconduct.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment.