Summary
declining to interpret a California statute as applying to car rental transactions occurring outside of California where there was no expressed intent to regulate out-of-state transactions
Summary of this case from Schrenk v. Carvana, LLCOpinion
No. 05-56764.
Argued and Submitted August 8, 2007.
Filed September 14, 2007.
David Zlotnick, Esq., James C. Krause, Esq., Eric Benink, Esq., Vincent Slavens, Esq., Krause Kalfayan, San Diego, CA, Alexander Anolik, Esq., Alex F. Pevzner, Esq., Alexander Anolik APLC, San Francisco, CA, Plaintiffs-Appellants.
William P. Donovan, Esq., DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, U.S. LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-01039-DMS.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' section 1936 claim. A California statute will not be construed to have extraterritorial effects in the absence of a clear expression or reasonable inference from its text. J.P. Morgan Co. v. Superior Court, 113 Cal.App.4th 195, 221, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 214 (Ct.App. 2003). The statute's text does not clearly express an intent to cover out-of-state conduct. The references to specific California locations and the requirement that audits be provided to the California legislature negate any inference from its text.
2. The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' unfair competition claim. We need not determine the reach of California's unfair competition law as the acts by defendants are not "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent." Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200. Defendants' conduct is not unlawful as it is not covered by California law and there is no allegation that defendants violated the laws of other States. See Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wash.App. 104, 108, 22 P.3d 818 (Ct.App. 2001). Defendants' conduct is not unfair or fraudulent as plaintiffs do not contest that the total price is clearly disclosed to the consumer with each rate quote.
3. Defendants shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs for this appeal as provided by California law. Cal. Civ. Code § 1936(q). The determination of the appropriate amount of fees on appeal is referred to the court's Appellate Commissioner, who shall conduct whatever proceedings he deems appropriate and shall have the authority to enter an order awarding fees. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.9. The Commissioner's order is subject to reconsideration by this panel. Id.
4. Plaintiffs' request to take judicial notice is denied as containing material outside the record and irrelevant to the appeal.
AFFIRMED.