Zermeno v. Precis, Inc., No. B207674

By FindLaw Staff on December 28, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In plaintiffs' unfair competition action against defendants-healthcare discount program providers, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the pre-trial settlement of plaintiffs' damage claims meant they no longer had standing to sue under the new standing requirements of Proposition 64 is reversed and remanded as the changed standing rule was not intended to apply to cases pending when it took effect where a plaintiff had suffered actual injury as required by the new law, but settled that portion of its action before Proposition 64 took effect. 

Read Zermeno v. Precis, Inc., No. B207674 [HTML]

Read Zermeno v. Precis, Inc., No. B207674 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed December 23,  2009


Opinion by Judge Rubin

For Appellant:   Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, David Pallack, Joshua Stehlik, Jose O. Tello and Christina Ku; Los Angeles Center for Law & Justice and Hellen Hong

For Appellee:   Mayer Brown, Philip R. Recht, Christopher P. Murphy and Francisco Ochoa

Copied to clipboard