PFIZER INC v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Part II
PFIZER INC v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Part II
PFIZER INC v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Part II 07:17:2006
PFIZER INC v. SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Filed 7/11/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
PFIZER INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent;
STEVE GALFANO,
Real Party in Interest.
B188106
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC327114)
Story Continue from Part I ………..
Section 17203, as amended by Proposition 64, provides: â€
Description
Proposition 64 restrictions on private enforcement of unfair competition and false advertising law require that plaintiff must have relied on allegedly false or misleading misrepresentation or advertisement in entering into transaction. So, trial court erred in certifying overbroad class made up of all persons who purchased particular product during applicable time period.
