Review Granted in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted review in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1136, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Proposition 64 created a two-part, standing test, and applied that test to bar claims by plaintiffs who were unable to show that the defendant had attempted to enforce the unlawful and unconscionable provisions in their agreements. The case is only applicable to wage and hour cases to the extent that they include unfair competition claims arising from unlawful employment practices found in handbooks that have not been enforced, and no arising from PAGA notices. We're following the case, however, for that reason and because we think someone should sue the pants off of Sprint, too.

Comments

[mary dumont]

does this go contrary to people v. mckale, important 17200 case saying that inclusion of unlawful provisions can violate 17200 even if not enforced because they have a tendency to deceive, which is obvious. supreme court case, i think, 1974