Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

and the ability to bring a collective action without obtaining class certification. Prop 64 had
no impact on the governing statute of limitations for UCL claims, however.
With respect to standing, Prop 64 revised Business & Professions Code Section 17203 and
17204 to impose real standing requirements on individuals seeking to bring UCL claims.
The statute previously gave standing to sue to any person suing on behalf of the “general
public.” Individual standing under the UCL is now limited to a person “who has suffered
injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of . . . unfair competition.” 284 The
proponents of the law argued that this change was intended to stop “shakedown lawyers”
who “appoint themselves to act like the Attorney General and file lawsuits on behalf of the
people of the State of California.” 285 The proponents also argued that voters should support
Prop 64 because it “[p]rotects your right to file a lawsuit if you have been damaged” while it
“[a]llows only the Attorney General, district attorneys, and other public officials to file
lawsuits on behalf of the People of the State of California to enforce California’s unfair
competition laws.” 286
As for class certification requirements, Prop 64 amended Business & Professions Code
Section 17203 to include an express requirement that individuals seeking to bring collective
actions under the UCL must satisfy the requirements for class certification set forth in
Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including (1) a community of interest among
the class members; (2) common questions of law or fact which predominate over
individualized issues; (3) a claim that is typical of the class; and (4) the plaintiff must be
able to adequately represent the interests of the class. 287
C. Proposition 64’s Restrictions on UCL Class Actions
An issue raised by Prop 64 was whether, in a UCL-based class action, the Prop 64
standing requirement applies to all members of the proposed class, or just to the class
representatives. Initially, it appeared that courts were tending toward requiring all class
members to have standing. 288 However, in 2009, the California Supreme Court handed
down In re Tobacco Cases II, 289 which held that Prop 64’s standing requirement applied
only to the class representative and not to each and every person within the proposed
class. More specifically, the California Supreme Court held that:
284
285
286
287
288
289
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204.
Official Voter Information Guide, Arguments and Rebuttals, Proposition 64,
www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop64-arguments.htm (accessed November 17, 2004).
Official Voter Information Guide, Arguments and Rebuttals, Proposition 64,
www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop64-arguments.htm (accessed November 17, 2004).
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 1096, 1103-04 (2003).
Pfizer, Inc. v. Superior Court, 141 Cal. App. 4th 290, review granted, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 707 (July 11, 2006).
46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009).
Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (12th Edition) 65