Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions CA2/8

Filed 7/9/13 Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions CA2/8 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

JAMSHID ARYEH, B213104

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 384674) v.

CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert L. Hess, Judge. Reversed.

Westrup Klick, R. Duane Westrup, Mark L. Van Buskirk, Jennifer L. Conner; Krieger & Krieger, Linda Guthmann Krieger and Terrence B. Krieger for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dorsey & Whitney, Kent J. Schmidt, John P. Cleveland, Richard H. Silberberg and Robert G. Manson for Defendant and Respondent.

****** Jamshid Aryeh appeals from the order dismissing his second amended complaint brought under the unfair competition law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.1 The trial court sustained respondent Canon Business Solutions, Inc.‟s (Canon) general demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that the allegations failed to state a cause of action and that the claim was barred by laches, the applicable statute of limitations set forth in section 17208, and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We initially affirmed, finding the action barred by the statute of limitations. The California Supreme Court reversed our decision, concluding instead that continuous accrual principles prevented dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1189.) We now reverse the order of dismissal. FACTS Canon sells and leases copiers, scanners, printers and other products to customers. In November 2001, appellant, as an individual and doing business as ABC Copy & Print, entered into an agreement with Canon to lease a black and white copier. Under the agreement, appellant agreed to pay a monthly fee in return for a monthly copy allowance, and also agreed to pay an additional excess copy charge for each additional copy beyond the monthly allotment. In February 2002, appellant entered into a second lease agreement with Canon to lease a color copier under similar terms. Shortly after entering into the copy rental agreements, appellant began noticing that meter readings taken by Canon‟s field service personnel did not appear to accurately reflect the number of copies actually made on appellant‟s leased copiers. Appellant asked Canon numerous times, orally and in writing, to repair the copiers and to take accurate readings, to no avail. Consequently, appellant began keeping his own records of the number of copies made on each machine and determined he was being charged for