Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Zermeno v. Precis, Inc., No. B207674

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on December 28, 2009 7:54 AM

In plaintiffs' unfair competition action against defendants-healthcare discount program providers, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the pre-trial settlement of plaintiffs' damage claims meant they no longer had standing to sue under the new standing requirements of Proposition 64 is reversed and remanded as the changed standing rule was not intended to apply to cases pending when it took effect where a plaintiff had suffered actual injury as required by the new law, but settled that portion of its action before Proposition 64 took effect. 

Read Zermeno v. Precis, Inc., No. B207674 [HTML]

Read Zermeno v. Precis, Inc., No. B207674 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed December 23,  2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Rubin

Counsel
For Appellant:   Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, David Pallack, Joshua Stehlik, Jose O. Tello and Christina Ku; Los Angeles Center for Law & Justice and Hellen Hong

For Appellee:   Mayer Brown, Philip R. Recht, Christopher P. Murphy and Francisco Ochoa

Find a Lawyer

More Options