Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co.

E.D. California

Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co.

DecidedJanuary 13, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00261

StatusUnknown

This text of Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co. (Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Marjorie Devillena, No. 2:22-ev-00261-KIM-AC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 | American States Preferred Insurance Company, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 The court previously dismissed several claims by plaintiff Marjorie Devillena in this 18 | insurance coverage case against defendant American States Preferred Insurance Company. See 19 | Order (Oct. 31, 2022), ECF No. 33; Order (Apr. 25, 2022), ECF No. 16. American States now 20 | moves to dismiss one of Devillena’s remaining claims, which she asserts under California’s 21 | Unfair Competition Law (UCL). See generally Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 37. That motion is now 22 | fully briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 38; Reply, ECF No. 40. Having reviewed the briefs 23 | and case file, the court submits the motion for decision without hearing oral arguments. 24 The legal standard that applies to American States’ current motion is the same standard 25 | this court summarized in its previous order. See Order (Oct. 31, 2022) at 2-3. The court applies 26 | that standard now without reiterating it. 27 A plaintiff may pursue a claim under California’s UCL in federal court by alleging the 28 | defendant’s conduct was “unlawful.” See Cel-Tech Comme’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20

1 | Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999); see also, e.g., Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857, 865 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 | Devillena alleges American States violated the California Insurance Code, among other reasons 3 | because it compels insureds to “institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance 4 | policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by 5 | the insureds,” including in her case. Second Am. Compl. § 21, ECF No. 35 (quoting Cal. Ins. 6 | Code § 790.3(h)(6)). This allegation supports her claim of “unlawful” conduct under the UCL. 7 American States argues Devillena cannot pursue a claim under the UCL because the court 8 | could not award the relief she seeks. See Mem. at 11-13, ECF No. 37-1. “Injunctions are ‘the 9 | primary form of relief available under the UCL to protect consumers from unfair business 10 | practices’ ....” Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 337 (2011) (quoting Jn re 11 | Tobacco IT Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 319 (2009)). Devillena seeks injunctive relief. Second Am. 12 | Compl. § 78. The court need not decide whether she may also seek restitution of some kind, 13 | which is an “ancillary” form of relief in UCL cases. In re Tobacco IT Cases, 46 Cal. 4th at 319; 14 | Cf Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 733 F. App’x 404, 405-06 (9th Cir. 2018) 15 | (unpublished) (summarizing some relevant California law). 16 The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is denied. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: January 13, 2023. [ (] 19 l ti / { iJ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Marjorie Devillena, No. 2:22-ev-00261-KIM-AC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 | American States Preferred Insurance Company, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 The court previously dismissed several claims by plaintiff Marjorie Devillena in this 18 | insurance coverage case against defendant American States Preferred Insurance Company. See 19 | Order (Oct. 31, 2022), ECF No. 33; Order (Apr. 25, 2022), ECF No. 16. American States now 20 | moves to dismiss one of Devillena’s remaining claims, which she asserts under California’s 21 | Unfair Competition Law (UCL). See generally Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 37. That motion is now 22 | fully briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 38; Reply, ECF No. 40. Having reviewed the briefs 23 | and case file, the court submits the motion for decision without hearing oral arguments. 24 The legal standard that applies to American States’ current motion is the same standard 25 | this court summarized in its previous order. See Order (Oct. 31, 2022) at 2-3. The court applies 26 | that standard now without reiterating it. 27 A plaintiff may pursue a claim under California’s UCL in federal court by alleging the 28 | defendant’s conduct was “unlawful.” See Cel-Tech Comme’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20

1 | Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999); see also, e.g., Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857, 865 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 | Devillena alleges American States violated the California Insurance Code, among other reasons 3 | because it compels insureds to “institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance 4 | policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by 5 | the insureds,” including in her case. Second Am. Compl. § 21, ECF No. 35 (quoting Cal. Ins. 6 | Code § 790.3(h)(6)). This allegation supports her claim of “unlawful” conduct under the UCL. 7 American States argues Devillena cannot pursue a claim under the UCL because the court 8 | could not award the relief she seeks. See Mem. at 11-13, ECF No. 37-1. “Injunctions are ‘the 9 | primary form of relief available under the UCL to protect consumers from unfair business 10 | practices’ ....” Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 337 (2011) (quoting Jn re 11 | Tobacco IT Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 319 (2009)). Devillena seeks injunctive relief. Second Am. 12 | Compl. § 78. The court need not decide whether she may also seek restitution of some kind, 13 | which is an “ancillary” form of relief in UCL cases. In re Tobacco IT Cases, 46 Cal. 4th at 319; 14 | Cf Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 733 F. App’x 404, 405-06 (9th Cir. 2018) 15 | (unpublished) (summarizing some relevant California law). 16 The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is denied. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: January 13, 2023. [ (] 19 l ti / { iJ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devillena-v-american-states-preferred-ins-co-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack