HOLDINGS: [1]-A purchaser of an allegedly defective vehicle was entitled to invoke the consumer protection laws of a state of which the purchaser was not a resident since the purchaser sufficiently alleged that the nationwide distributor of the vehicles was incorporated and had its principal place of business in the state, and made relevant communications concerning the quality of the vehicles in the state; [2]-The purchaser sufficiently alleged that the distributor fraudulently concealed the defect in the vehicles since the purchaser alleged that the distributor and its representatives intentionally concealed the defect which led to costly repairs and significant safety risks, and that the omission occurred at the time of purchase when the distributor disseminated the information which failed to disclose the known defect. An EEOC lawyer represented respondent.
Outcome
Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part, and motion to strike granted in part and denied in part.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-The buyers proposed amendment of their complaint against the California Attorney General (AG) for imposing conditions on their purchase of a non-profit corporation’s hospitals under the Nonprofit Hospital Transfer Statute, Cal. Corp. Code §§ 5914-5925, was deemed futile because, inter alia, they could not allege a liberty or property interest for their substantive and procedural due process challenges to the Statute’s constitutionality, the conditions the AG imposed on the transaction did not require the buyers to unionize, the Statute was not void for vagueness in its application and as applied where Cal. Corp. Code § 5917 contained factors for what the AG was to consider in her review of the transaction, and the buyers’ class-of-one claim failed for lack of a similarly situated comparator.
Outcome
Motions denied in part and affirmed in part.