Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Marjorie Devillena, No. 2:22-ev-00261-KIM-AC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 | American States Preferred Insurance Company, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 The court previously dismissed several claims by plaintiff Marjorie Devillena in this 18 | insurance coverage case against defendant American States Preferred Insurance Company. See 19 | Order (Oct. 31, 2022), ECF No. 33; Order (Apr. 25, 2022), ECF No. 16. American States now 20 | moves to dismiss one of Devillena’s remaining claims, which she asserts under California’s 21 | Unfair Competition Law (UCL). See generally Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 37. That motion is now 22 | fully briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 38; Reply, ECF No. 40. Having reviewed the briefs 23 | 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 25 | this court summarized in its previous order. See Order (Oct. 31, 2022) at 2-3. The court applies 26 | that standard now without reiterating it. 27 A plaintiff may pursue a claim under California’s UCL in federal court by alleging the 28 | defendant’s conduct was “unlawful.” See Cel-Tech Comme’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 1 | 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 3 | because it compels insureds to “institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance 4 | policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by 5 | the insureds,” including in her case. Second Am. Compl. § 21, ECF No. 35 (quoting Cal. Ins. 6 | 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 8 | could not award the relief she seeks. See Mem. at 11-13, ECF No. 37-1. “Injunctions are ‘the 9 | primary form of relief available under the UCL to protect consumers from unfair business 10 | practices’ ....” Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 337 (2011) (quoting Jn re 11 | Tobacco IT Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 319 (2009)). Devillena seeks injunctive relief. Second Am. 12 | Compl. § 78. The court need not decide whether she may also seek restitution of some kind, 13 | which is an “ancillary” form of relief in UCL cases. In re Tobacco IT Cases, 46 Cal. 4th at 319; 14 | Cf Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 733 F. App’x 404, 405-06 (9th Cir. 2018) 15 | (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 45