Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | Marjorie Devillena, No. 2:22-ev-00261-KIM-AC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. | American States Preferred Insurance Company, et al., 16 Defendants.

17 The court previously dismissed several claims by plaintiff Marjorie Devillena in this | insurance coverage case against defendant American States Preferred Insurance Company. See | Order (Oct. 31, 2022), ECF No. 33; Order (Apr. 25, 2022), ECF No. 16. American States now | moves to dismiss one of Devillena’s remaining claims, which she asserts under California’s | Unfair Competition Law (UCL). See generally Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 37. That motion is now | fully briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 38; Reply, ECF No. 40. Having reviewed the briefs | and case file, the court submits the motion for decision without hearing oral arguments.

24 The legal standard that applies to American States’ current motion is the same standard | this court summarized in its previous order. See Order (Oct. 31, 2022) at 2-3. The court applies | that standard now without reiterating it.

27 A plaintiff may pursue a claim under California’s UCL in federal court by alleging the | defendant’s conduct was “unlawful.” See Cel-Tech Comme’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 | Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999); see also, e.g., Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857, 865 (9th Cir. 2018).

2 | Devillena alleges American States violated the California Insurance Code, among other reasons | because it compels insureds to “institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance | policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by | the insureds,” including in her case. Second Am. Compl. § 21, ECF No. 35 (quoting Cal. Ins. | Code § 790.3(h)(6)). This allegation supports her claim of “unlawful” conduct under the UCL.

7 American States argues Devillena cannot pursue a claim under the UCL because the court | could not award the relief she seeks. See Mem. at 11-13, ECF No. 37-1. “Injunctions are ‘the | primary form of relief available under the UCL to protect consumers from unfair business | practices’ ....” Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 337 (2011) (quoting Jn re | Tobacco IT Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 319 (2009)). Devillena seeks injunctive relief. Second Am. | Compl. § 78. The court need not decide whether she may also seek restitution of some kind, | which is an “ancillary” form of relief in UCL cases. In re Tobacco IT Cases, 46 Cal. 4th at 319; | Cf Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 733 F. App’x 404, 405-06 (9th Cir. 2018) | (unpublished) (summarizing some relevant California law).

16 The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is denied.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 DATED: January 13, 2023. [ (] 19 l ti / { iJ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE