HOLDINGS: -In a case in which plaintiff sued a mortgage lender for, inter alia, violation of Civ. Code, § 2954.8, after the lender placed hazard insurance proceeds in a non-interest bearing escrow account, the appellate court concluded that neither § 2954.8 nor the parties’ loan agreement required the payment of interest. Section 2954.8 applies to common escrows maintained to pay taxes, assessments, and insurance premiums – not to the comparatively unique example of hazard insurance proceeds held by a lender pending property rebuilding. Accordingly, the insurance proceeds held by the lender pursuant to a deed of trust fell outside the scope of § 2954.8. Plaintiff’s secondary reliance on the purported purposes of § 2954.8 did not and could not circumvent the statute’s plain language. The parties should have considered hiring san diego litigation attorney.
HOLDINGS: -In a purported class action, consumers’ negligent misrepresentation and claims under California’s Unfair Competition and Consumers Legal Remedies Acts against two juice producers failed to identify which producer was responsible for which label or set out the allegedly deceptive practices, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), warranting dismissal of those claims; -Consumers’ state law claims concerning the use of malic acid on product labels were preempted by federal law, and 21 C.F.R. § 101.4(b), which required the use of a specific name, did not override § 101.4(a), which required the use of a common or usual name; -Consumers’ allegations were inadequate to toll the applicable statutes of limitation for many of their claims under the delayed discovery or fraudulent concealment theories, warranting dismissal of those that were time-barred.
Motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part; motion for more definite statement denied; leave to file second amended complaint granted.