Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Haskell v. Time, Inc.

    965 F. Supp. 1398 (E.D. Cal. 1997)   Cited 26 times
    Finding that the "plaintiff must demonstrate by extrinsic evidence, such as consumer survey evidence, that the challenged statements tend to mislead consumers"

    Defendants argue that because the California Supreme Court has granted review of a case permitting private plaintiffs to bring actions under § 17200 to address violations of state criminal statutes, the viability of a claim under § 17200 is questionable. See Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 46 Cal.App.4th 1371, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 319 (1996), petition for review granted, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 687, 924 P.2d 996 (1996). But until this case is decided the court must follow existing case law, particularly People v. McKale, 25 Cal.3d 626, 159 Cal.Rptr. 811, 602 P.2d 731 (1979) and Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal.3d 197, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660 (1983).

  2. Wawanesa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Matlock

    60 Cal.App.4th 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 21 times
    In Wawanesa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Matlock (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 583, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 512, "Timothy Matlock, age [17], bought two packs of cigarettes from a gas station.... Tim gave one of the packs to his friend, Eric Erdley, age [15].

    II Negligence Per Se The question of whether section 308 affords a private right of action based on the unfair competition laws is now pending before the Supreme Court in Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.[*] (Cal.App.). For purposes of the present case, we will assume, without deciding, that Wawanesa has standing to raise the violation of section 308 as a basis on which to predicate a negligence per se claim.