 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sarkis v. California Association of Licensed Investigators11/12/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
While still a member of defendant California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI), plaintiff Sue Sarkis, a private investigator, state-licensed for more than 20 years, filed a lawsuit seeking damages against CALI based on causes of action for defamation, wrongful suspension of membership rights, and an injunction against unfair business practices under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, ยง 17200 et seq. ). She appeals from the judgment entered after the court granted a non-suit for CALI and against Sarkis on Sarkis' UCL cause of action at the close of Sarkis' opening statement. Concluding that Sarkis failed to offer proof of injury, or the likelihood of injury, to the general public, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
At the final status conference, the court ruled that Sarkis would have to prove not only that CALI violated "the Corporations Code as a business practice," but also would have to "demonstrate the unlawful practice causes or is likely to cause injury to the general public."
Sarkis filed a motion for reconsideration. In denying the motion, the court said it had concluded that although any member of the public may sue as private attorney general for violation of the UCL without the plaintiff being harmed, "there has to be some public interest involved." "The law requires `public injury' for representative standing. This does not mean that members of the public must have actually relied on some representation of the offending business, or that a member of the public must have actually been damaged. It means only that the conduct is likely to cause injury . . . ." The court said CALI had correctly insisted that Sarkis prove an injury or likelihood of injury to the general public, on whose behalf she purportedly filed the lawsuit.
Prior to giving his opening statement, counsel for Sarkis acknowledged that Sarkis' was not a derivative action and that she made no personal claim for damages. Counsel stated the evidence would prove that CALI had routinely violated state law regarding management and care of nonprofit mutual benefit corporations and would show CALI had knowingly and willfully violated the rights of its membership as well as those of certain directors, in violation of the Corporations Code. CALI, he said, also violated some bylaws and its articles of incorporation. Counsel listed numerous alleged omissions, such as failure to notify each member annually of the member's right to receive a financial report in conformance with the Corporations Code and refusal to complete financial reports when so asked by members. This failure to provide complete and accurate reports to members had put CALI in serious jeopardy because it owed large sums of money to the state under the escheat laws and was holding funds that should be escheated, in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure. CALI had repeatedly violated its bylaws by accepting dues from individuals who were no longer members. It had listed individuals as licensed investigators who it knew were not licensed, to the detriment of members who relied on information in CALI's directory, in violation of certain sections of the Business and Professions and Corporations Codes. It may have violated certain Penal Code sections. Counsel's argument continued in this vein.
At the close of Sarkis' statement, CALI ma
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|