Plaintiff disabled person sued defendant litigation lawyer san diego, alleging negligence, a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., breach of contract, public disclosure of private facts, and invasion of privacy under the California Constitution. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The disabled person appealed.
The appellate court determined that the disabled person’s negligence claim failed because he did not allege sufficient facts showing that the university owed him a duty of care since he did not show that the California Supreme Court would recognize a common-law duty of care, and to the extent he argued that the university had a duty based on its contractual relationship with him, any such duty was better enforced through his claim for breach of contract. The disabled person’s claim under the UCL failed because even assuming that his complaint should have been read to allege that this claim was based on the university’s violation of policies in its handbooks, he failed to allege any actions by the university that would constitute a business practice. The disabled person’s breach of contract claim survived because the California Supreme Court likely would conclude that a general contractual relationship existed between the parties and that the contract included the terms the disabled person quoted out of the university’s student disability services handbook, including the university’s promise to keep all information pertaining to the disabled person’s disability confidential.
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the claims for breach of contract, public disclosure of private facts, and invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, affirmed as to the other claims, and remanded.
Plaintiff electricity buyers sued defendant energy suppliers, alleging unfair business practices in California’s wholesale energy market, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., seeking injunction relief and restitution. The energy suppliers moved to dismiss.
The energy suppliers maintained that the electricity buyers’ state law claims were federally preempted because the relief the electricity buyers sought interfered with exclusive federal authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C.S. § 792 et seq. In addition, the energy suppliers asserted that the filed rate doctrine likewise barred the claims. The court ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) had exclusive jurisdiction over interstate wholesale electricity rates. The generating plants owned by the energy suppliers were connected to the interstate electricity grid, which made the electricity interstate in nature. The fact that the transactions at issue concerned sales of electricity generated in California and sold in California did not alter the conclusion that the wholesale transactions were still interstate in nature. The energy sales fell within FERC’s jurisdiction, preempting the electricity buyers’ claims. Also, the filed rate doctrine applied to bar claims challenging rates set by the FERC in a market-based rate system.
The motion to dismiss was granted.