Bivens v. Sanford
Plaintiff (Bivens) appeals the judgment and cost award in his action under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, S 17200) and the False Advertising Law (FAL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, S 17500). The trial court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings because the passage of Proposition 64 on November 2, 2004, while the case was pending, deprived plaintiff of standing to bring an action based upon alleged deceptive packaging of Sharpie pens. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit amendment to substitute a plaintiff with standing, and that in light of the retroactive application of Proposition 64's changes, any award of costs was a violation of due process and constituted a bill of attainder. Court reverse, finding the trial court erred in refusing to permit amendment.
Comments on Bivens v. Sanford