Consumer Legal Remedies/Elder Abuse Statutes Did Not Preempt, Although Defense Costs Had To Be Reviewed On Remand To Make Sure They Were Not Inflated In Nature.
In Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC, Case No. A170383 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 19, 2025) (published), the question was whether a continuing care retirement community could increase annual budgets for anticipated defense costs of class actions brought under the CLRA and Elder Abuse Act? The trial court answered “no” because it found that would contravene the fee-shifting, pro-plaintiff provisions of those two Acts. The appellate court reversed, determining that the increases were permissible under Health & Safety Code section 1788. However, the appellate panel did remand and indicated that the fee “reserves” could not be inflated in nature when the issue was reexamined.