 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Macchi v. Jackson2/26/2002
1, 22-23.) Regardless of whether misappropriation of name is viewed as a violation of the right to privacy so that the one-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (3) applies (Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 880, 895-896) or as an intrusion upon a property interest in the right of publicity so that the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 339, subdivision 1 applies (see Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1206; Maheu v. CBS, Inc. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 662, 676), a cause of action for misappropriation of name is time barred because Macchi filed his complaint more than two years after he discovered the alleged misuse of his name.
3. Unfair Competition Law
The unfair competition law prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) The broad scope of the unfair competition law embraces " `anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.' " (Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 113, applying former Civ. Code, § 3369; accord, Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.)
The term "business practice" connotes a commercial arena. Conduct that is primarily noncommercial with only an incidental connection to a commercial arena cannot properly be called a business practice. Thus, the California Supreme Court in Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at page 329 held that a conspiracy to influence government action to legalize poker clubs could not properly be called a business practice under the unfair competition law. Just as the primarily political activity in Blank v. Kirwan did not constitute a business practice, the primarily personal activity here cannot properly be called a business practice.
The defendants' alleged misconduct involved misuse of Macchi's name in order to acquire prescription drugs for personal use, committed by persons for whom Macchi provided personal services and by their physicians. The personal nature of the misconduct belies the claim that the defendants were engaged in business practices such as the unfair competition law was designed to remedy. We conclude that Macchi has not alleged a business practice and therefore has not alleged a valid cause of action for violation of the unfair competition law.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The defendants shall recover their costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
KLEIN, P.J.
ALDRICH, J.
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|