California Supreme Court Watch

#21-379 California Medical Assn. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc., S269212. (B304127; 63 Cal.App.5th 660; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC487412.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does an organization that expends resources and diverts them from other activities in order to counteract a defendant’s allegedly unfair competition practices satisfy the requirement of injury in fact or lost money or property in order to have standing to bring an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)? (2) Does organizational standing depend on whether the organization has members who are also injured by the practices and who would also benefit from the requested relief?

Review granted: 07/28/2021

Case fully briefed: 4/15/2022

Cause argued and submitted: 5/09/2023

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 7/17/2023

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

In the news:  Cutler & Yu, Aetna Must Litigate Doctors’ Group Suit Over Policy Changes, Bloomberg Law (July 17, 2023).

See the California Court of Appeal Opinion.  (California Medical Assn. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1075.)

“We hold that the UCL’s standing requirements are satisfied when an organization, in furtherance of a bona fide, preexisting mission, incurs costs to respond to perceived unfair competition that threatens that mission, so long as those expenditures are independent of costs incurred in UCL litigation or preparations for such litigation. When an organization has incurred such expenditures, it has ‘suffered injury in fact’ and ‘lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.’ (§ 17204.) In this case, which arises on appeal from summary judgment for the defense, the record discloses a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff association expended resources in response to the perceived threat the health insurer’s allegedly unlawful practices posed to plaintiff’s mission of supporting its member physicians and advancing public health. The evidence was also sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether those expenses were incurred independent of this litigation. For these reasons, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defense. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the grant of summary judgment.”

Justice Evans authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Jenkins concurred.