Class Action

Supreme Court issues "grant and hold" order in Prop. 64 "injury in fact" case: O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg., Inc.

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a "grant and hold" order in O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg., no. S163207. The order reads:

Petition for Review GRANTED. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in In re Tobacco II Cases, S147345, and Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, LP, S153846 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a) is deferred pending further order of the court.

In O'Brien, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) affirmed summary judgment in the defendant's favor, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert UCL or CLRA claims because he did not suffer injury in fact as a result of the defendant's alleged misconduct. The suit challenged the defendant's purported mislabeling of its products as "Made in the U.S.A." O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Manufacturing, Inc., 161 Cal.App.4th 388 (2008).

My original blog post on O'Brien is at this link.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on July 11, 2008 (boomark / &linkurl=http://www.uslaw.com/library/Class_Action/Supreme_Court_issues_grant_hold_order_Prop_64_injury_fact_case_OBrien_.php?item=190456' rel=nofollow title='The UCL Practitioner'>email).