In plaintiffs’ suit against the defendant-Cruise Line brought under the California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), over charges added to the price of shore excursions taken during a cruise, trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in concluding that the CLRA cause of action was barred by Civil Code 1781(c); 2) a plaintiff asserting UCL, FAL and CLRA must show that he or she relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations; 3) plaintiffs did not rely on any representations made by defendants; 4) there are no material questions of fact about the cost of excursions.
Read Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct., No. B212761 [HTML]
Read Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct., No. B212761 [PDF]
Filed November 10, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Flier
Counsel
For Appellant: Kaye, Rose & Partners, Bradley M. Rose, Carolyn J. Kaye, Aksana Moshaiv and André M. Picciurro
For Appellee: Bailey Law Group, Mohammed K. Ghods and William A. Stahr
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
