On September 23, 2009 the Second District Court of Appeal issued a new class related opinion in Morgan v. AT&T Wireless,__ Cal.App.4th __ (2009). The opinion is one of the first to address pleading requirements under the UCL/FAL after In Re Tobacco II. A significant amount of attention is spent discussing the substantive requirements of the underlying UCL/FAL claims (relevant to the class), and Prop 64 standing requirements (relevant only to the named representative).
The decision also contains discussion of the accepted practice of pleading an injunctive CLRA claim prior to sending prelitigation notice (Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(d)). If my recollection serves me correctly, a depublication request was recently filed in Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1165 n.4 (2009) over concerns the Second District included a footnoted discussion that omitted this distinction from its analysis. The Morgan opinion, which discusses this issue in significant detail, likely resolves any confusion that may have been caused by Yabsley's conclusory analysis.