## Facts

- United Investors Life Insurance Company, a life insurer, sued Waddell & Reed and related entities and individuals under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
- The complaint alleged a nationwide campaign to induce United Investors’ variable annuity policyholders to replace their policies with annuities issued by another insurer.
- United Investors brought the action in a representative capacity “on behalf of the general public,” as permitted under the pre–Proposition 64 version of the UCL.
- The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment dismissing the action.
- United Investors timely appealed the judgment of dismissal.
- While the appeal was pending, Proposition 64 became effective and amended Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 to limit private UCL standing to persons who suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the amended standing requirement deprived United Investors of standing to maintain the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Proposition 64’s amendment to Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 deprived a plaintiff, whose UCL action was dismissed and appealed before Proposition 64 took effect, of standing to maintain the appeal.
2. Whether defendants’ Proposition 64 standing arguments could be resolved via a motion to dismiss the appeal rather than through ordinary appellate briefing and decision.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal.
- The court held that United Investors had standing to appeal the judgment of dismissal notwithstanding Proposition 64.
- The court limited its ruling to the procedural question of appellate standing and did not decide the merits of the UCL claims.

## Legal Principles

- Standing to prosecute a UCL action under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 is distinct from standing to appeal an adverse judgment entered in an action properly before the trial court when filed.
- A statutory change restricting who may bring UCL claims does not, without more, eliminate a party’s ability to seek appellate review of a pre-amendment judgment of dismissal.
- Arguments about how Proposition 64 affects the viability or permissible form of a UCL claim in a pending case are generally addressed through normal appellate briefing and resolution, not by dismissing the appeal at the threshold for lack of appellate standing.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal permitted review of a pre–Proposition 64 UCL dismissal by holding that the initiative’s new standing limits did not strip the plaintiff of the right to maintain its pending appeal, and it denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal.


United Invs. Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 125 Cal. App. 4th 1300, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 (Ct. App. 2005)