Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Archer v. United Rentals

Archer v. United Rentals

Ratings: (0)|Views: 100|Likes:
Published by www.BaileyDaily.com

More info:

Published by: www.BaileyDaily.com on May 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Filed 5/19/11
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIASECOND APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONEVINCENT ARCHER et al.,Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.UNITED RENTALS, INC., et al.,Defendants and Respondents.B219089(Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct. No. BC296139)APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, AnthonyJ. Mohr, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.Kreindler & Kreindler, Gretchen M. Nelson, Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Jacob H.Mensch, Andrew L. Ciganek; Jaffe + Martin, Howard M. Jaffe and Arthur L. Martin forPlaintiffs and Appellants.
Hollins • Schechter, Kathleen Mary Kushi Carter, Christine R. Arnold; Hollins
Law, Andrew S. Hollins, Jeffrey R. Gillette and Kathleen Mary Kushi Carter forDefendants and Respondents.
 2This is a putative class action, along with individual claims, arising from thealleged requesting and recording by United Rentals, Inc., and United Rentals Northwest,
Inc. (collectively defendants), of plaintiffs‘ personal identification information ―as acondition to accepting the credit card as payment in full or in part for goods or services,‖
in violation of section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (SBCCA)(Civ. Code, § 1747 et seq.).
 Vincent Archer and Alistair Cochran (collectively plaintiffs) appeal from the judgment entered against defendants on their individual claims for monetary recoveryunder the SBCCA and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750et seq.). On appeal, plaintiffs seek review of: (1)
the order granting defendants‘ motion
for summary adjudication on the class claim for injunctive relief under the UnfairCompetition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and (2) the order denyingcertification of a class on the SBCCA and CLRA claims.
 This appeal presents these significant issues: (1) Have plaintiffs establishedstanding to pursue a UCL claim by demonstrating
they ―suffered injury in fact and .
. .
lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition‖ (Bus. & Prof. Code,
§ 17204); (2) does the privacy protection of Civil Code section 1747.08 cover the use of abusiness credit card; (3) does such protection extend to a cardholder who uses a personal
credit card regardless of whether such use is ―primarily‖ or ―occasionally‖ for business
purposes; and (4) is class certification foreclosed by the unreasonableness of ascertainingclass membership?We resolve the first issue in the negative. As our Supreme Court recently
clarified: ―It suffices to say that, in sharp contrast to the state of the law before passage
Undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code.
In their notice of appeal, plaintiffs purport to appeal from these two orders andfrom the order granting their summary judgment motion and awarding them each $250.
 No appeal lies from these interim orders. Plaintiffs‘ challenges to these orders are proper 
only on appeal from the judgment. In their opening brief, plaintiffs state they abandonthat portion of their appeal challenging their recovery as limited to $250 for eachplaintiff.
 3of Proposition 64, a private plaintiff filing suit now must establish that he or she hasperso
nally suffered [a loss of money or property],‖ and plaintiffs have shown neither.
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court 
(2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 323 (
We answer thesecond issue in the negative. A plain reading of the applicable SBCCA provisionsreveals that a cardholder using a business card in making the purchase is not entitled tothe privacy protection of section 1747.08. As for the third issue, we find that whether the
 personal card is used ―occasionally‖ or ―primarily‖ for business purposes is
a distinctionwithout a difference. The purpose for which the personal credit card is used is of noimport. The key factor is that the card was issued for personal use. Section 1747.02
unequivocally and without qualification defines a ―‗[c]ardholder‘‖ as ―a natural person towhom a credit card is issued for consumer credit purposes[.]‖ (
, subd. (d).) Thelegislative history of the SBCCA confirms the Legislature intended section 1747.08 toprotect the personal identification information of the natural person without regard to hisor her use of the credit card.Finally, as to the fourth issue, in light of our resolution of the third issue, wereverse the order denying class certification and remand for clarification on the final anddeterminative issue. In denying class certification, the trial court concluded thatascertaining the class would be unreasonable because determining the class membership
would be ―intensively fact
driven‖ in view of the court‘s determination that the privacy
protection of section 1747.08 does not cover the use of business credit cards and
consumer credit cards used ―primarily‖ for business purposes. The record is unclear whether the court‘s unascertainability determination would remain unchanged if no need
exists for sorting personal credit cards used for consumer purposes from such cards used
―primarily‖ for business purposes.
By letter, we invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing on theapplicability, if any, of 
, 51 Cal.4th 310, on the issues in this appeal. Wehave received their responses.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->