978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-01-07 Part 1

Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2013

People v. JTH Tax, Inc.

212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 728, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 740, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 896

viewing court need not address the appellant’s arguments because one good reason is sufficient to sustain the order

from which the appeal was taken.

[9] Principal And Agent 308 1

whether a principal-agency relationship exists under a franchise agreement.

[10] Principal And Agent 308 24

308 Principal and Agent

the franchisee.

[11] Principal And Agent 308 1

308 Principal and Agent

[12] Antitrust And Trade Regulation 29T 291

29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation

29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection

29Tk388 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

The court’s discretion is very broad under the injunctive relief provisions of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

and False Advertising Law (FAL), and the statutory language is a grant of broad equitable power. Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §§ 17203, 17535.

[21] Appeal And Error 30 854(1)

30 Appeal and Error

30XVI Review

viewed for abuse of discretion. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.

[22] Antitrust And Trade Regulation 29T 382(2)

29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation

Trial court acted within its discretion in imposing injunction under Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False

Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to discipline its franchisees by requir–

ing a franchisee to pay a $15,000 fine to the Attorney General upon a second violation of restrictions against mis-

leading advertising, and requiring termination of the franchisee upon a third violation, where the trial court found

29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation

29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection

29TIII(E) Enforcement and Remedies

29TIII(E)7 Relief

29Tk380 Injunction

29Tk382 Grounds, Subjects, and Scope of Relief

29Tk382(2) k. Particular cases. Most Cited Cases

Permanent injunction under Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax re-

fund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to ensure that its and its franchisees’ advertisements made certain disclosures

“conspicuously” provided adequate notice about what conduct was prohibited, since it would not be feasible for the

court to be more specific about how to make disclosures conspicuous in light of the many different types of adver-

tisements servicer could disseminate. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.

212k1013 Scope of Relief in General

212k1016 k. Specificity, vagueness, overbreadth, and narrowly-tailored relief. Most Cited Cases

An injunction must be narrowly drawn to give the party enjoined reasonable notice of what conduct is prohibit-

ed.

30k1079 k. Insufficient discussion of objections. Most Cited Cases

Tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer‘s failure to further explain its argument or explain the relevance of

the cases it cited waived the argument on appeal that trial court’s permanent injunction under Unfair Competition

Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) improperly required servicer to violate the due process rights of fran-

29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation

29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection

29TIII(E) Enforcement and Remedies

Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to order fran-

chisees to pay a $15,000 fine to the Attorney General upon a second violation of restrictions against misleading ad–

vertising, and requiring termination of the franchisee upon a third violation, including evidence that regardless of

servicer’s written policies, there was insufficient internal management of advertising practices and there were viola-

tions of law. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Frances T. Grunder, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sheldon

H. Jaffe, Deputy Attorney General, Attorneys for Respondent.

National Consumer Law Center & National Association of Consumer Advocate, The Sturdevant Law Firm, James

federal lending, unfair competition, consumer protection, and false advertising laws. Liberty argues that the trial

court made errors of law and/or fact in determining that a “handling fee” charged for certain bank products was an

undisclosed finance charge under the federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA); Liberty’s cross-collection practices re-

garding past loan debts owed by customers were improper; Liberty was vicariously liable for its franchisees’ adver-

tising; certain civil penalties for advertising violations should be paid by Liberty; and a permanent injunction regard–

Liberty, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Virginia Beach, Virginia, provides certain tax preparation

and related loan services throughout the United States. As of the time of trial, Liberty had more than 2,000 fran-