IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA INC., Defendant and Respondent. S269212 Second Appellate District, Division Eight B304217 Los Angeles County Superior Court BC487412 July 17, 2023 Justice Evans authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Jenkins concurred. CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA INC. S269212 Opinion of the Court by Evans, J. The California Medical Association, a professional association representing California physicians, has sued a health insurance company, alleging the company violated the unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) by engaging in unlawful business practices. The UCL confers standing on a private plaintiff to seek relief under the statute only if that plaintiff has “suffered injury in fact” and “lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition” at issue. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.)1 This case presents the question whether an organization can satisfy these two related standing requirements by diverting its own resources to combat allegedly unfair competition. The issue arises here because, under the UCL as it was amended in 2004 by Proposition 64, a membership organization such as the California Medical Association may not base standing to sue on injuries to its members, but only on those to the organization itself. (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003– 1004 (Amalgamated Transit).) And, while an organization would clearly have standing under the UCL if it were, for example, fraudulently induced to buy a product from a deceptive 1 Unless otherwise specified, statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code. 1 CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA INC. Opinion of the Court by Evans, J. seller (see § 17201 [broadly defining “person[s]” who can sue under the UCL]), this case presents us with a more difficult question: whether resources that an organization has spent to counter an unfair or unlawful practice constitute “money or property” that has been “lost . . . as a result of the unfair competition.” (§ 17204.) We hold that the UCL’s standing requirements are satisfied when an organization, in furtherance of a bona fide, preexisting mission, incurs costs to respond to perceived unfair competition that threatens that mission, so long as those expenditures are independent of costs incurred in UCL litigation or preparations for such litigation. When an organization has incurred such expenditures, it has “suffered injury in fact” and “lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” (§ 17204.) In this case, which arises on appeal from summary judgment for the defense, the record discloses a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff association expended resources in response to the perceived threat the health insurer’s allegedly unlawful practices posed to plaintiff’s mission of supporting its member physicians and advancing public health. The evidence was also sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals