Class Action

New Prop. 64 "injury in fact" decision: O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg., Inc.

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

In O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Manufacturing, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Mar 27, 2008), 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.," even though no such representation appeared in the catalog from which the plaintiff ordered the product, so the plaintiff had not seen any such label before purchasing the product and could not have relied on it in making the purchase. The tone of the opinion suggests that the Court of Appeal found the case particularly unpalatable. It would be better for the profession and for litigants if such cases were not filed at all. Thanks to the readers who emailed me about this new decision.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on March 31, 2008 (boomark / &linkurl=http://www.uslaw.com/library/Class_Action/New_Prop_64_injury_fact_decision_OBrien_v_Camisasca_Automotive_Mfg_Inc.php?item=98700' rel=nofollow title='The UCL Practitioner'>email).