Plaintiffs, the people of the state (people) and a city, sued defendants, companies, alleging nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and health and safety violations. Plaintiffs also sought declaratory relief. The companies moved to dismiss and to strike plaintiffs’ prayer for attorney fees and punitive damages. An EEOC lawyer represented respondent.
Overview
Plaintiffs alleged that the companies engaged in, and were continuing to engage in, various acts or omissions at the certain site which had polluted and contaminated the city’s property and groundwater. In 1992, regional water quality control board issued the companies a cleanup and abatement order. Plaintiffs alleged that the companies had dragged their feet in complying with the order. The court found that the companies had not indicated how dismissing or staying this case would promote uniform application of regulatory laws; as such, the primary jurisdiction doctrine did not operate to deprive the court of authority. Because every continuing nuisance and trespass gave rise to a separate claim for damages, the three-year statute of limitations did not bar any of plaintiffs’ claims. Negligence per se was merely an evidentiary doctrine and not an independent cause of action. Plaintiffs admitted that the groundwater was not a current, or present, source of drinking water–merely that it could be available some time in the future. Plaintiffs could not premise their UCL claim on a company’s alleged probation violations. Declaratory relief was properly premised on other valid claims.
Outcome
The motion to dismiss was granted with regard to the negligence per se, violations of Proposition 65, and UCL claims. The motion to dismiss was denied in all other respects. The motion to strike attorneys’ fees was granted but was denied with regard to punitive damages.
Procedural Posture
Appellant depositor sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which sustained a demurrer without leave to amend filed by respondent bank and a entered judgment of dismissal in appellant’s purported class action challenging the validity of charges assessed by respondent against its depositors for processing checks drawn on commercial checking accounts without sufficient funds.
Overview
Appellant, a depositor with respondent bank, filed a purported class action challenging the validity of charges assessed by defendant against its depositors for processing checks drawn on commercial checking accounts without sufficient funds and seeking declarative relief and unjust enrichment. Thereafter, respondent’s general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and a judgment of dismissal entered and an appeal ensued. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment finding that a standardized signature card did not include an implied promise by the depositor to refrain from writing insufficient funds checks and that such checks should be treated as an application for advanced credit from the bank. As such, the court determined that there was a valid contract help by a bank to collect services charges when such checks were written.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment granting respondent bank’s demurrer and dismissing appellant depositor’s claims challenging the validity bank fees, finding that respondent had a contractual right to collect such funds under its signature card agreement with depositors, which did not constitute an adhesion contract.