Consumer Cause v. National Vision
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 9/24/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE CONSUMER CAUSE, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B165646 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 274257) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION NATIONAL VISION, INC., Defendant and Respondent. THE COURT:* IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on September 3, 2003, be modified in the following particulars: On page 9, before the Disposition, delete the last paragraph in its entirety beginning with In any event, and the following is inserted in its place: Even if Consumer did not have to establish harm as an element of its claim, it did not allege that anyone was or would be harmed by National s conduct. Consumer did not allege that the challenged conduct resulted or would result in inadequate or inappropriate medical care, greater cost, lessened competition, reduced professional or business opportunities, or any other harm to any person or entity. 2 In a suit under the UCL a public prosecutor may collect civil penalties, but a private plaintiff s remedies are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution. [Citations.] An order for restitution is one compelling a UCL defendant to return money obtained through an unfair business practice to those persons in interest from whom the property was taken. [Citation.] (Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 950, internal quotations omitted.) Thus, Consumer failed to allege facts entitling it to any remedy. This modification does not have an effect on the judgment. __________________________________________________________________ * ORTEGA, Acting P. J. VOGEL (Miriam A.) MALLANO, J.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
