Defendant Served With Notice Of Violation Of The Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) May Not Maintain A Declaratory Relief Action To Establish There Was No Violation.

A consumer served a dietary supplement manufacturer with a one page notice and demand, pursuant to Civil Code section 1782 [ Consumer Legal Remedies Act; CLRA ] via certified mail contending that its product “Amberen,” was being marketed falsely and misleadingly as a “natural remedy for Menopausal symptom relief,” in violation of the CLRA. The manufacturer then brought a declaratory relief action against the consumer and her attorneys seeking a declaration that it had not violated the CLRA. The consumer and the attorneys moved to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 [anti-SLAPP statute], which motion the trial court granted. In affirming the order, the appellate court stated: “[W]e hold that under the reasoning of Filarsky v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, [49 P.3d 194, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 844], (Filarsky), a potential defendant in a CLRA damages action after receiving the statutory notice may not maintain a declaratory relief action to establish that there was no violation of the CLRA.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 5; October 9, 2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, [178 Cal.Rptr.3d 784].)