Extract to table

The UCL Claim is uncertain and ambiguous in that it fails to specify whether it is brought under the "unlawful," "unfair," or "fraudulent" prong of section 17200 and fails to allege facts specific to any prong, thereby depriving AMA of fair notice of the theory or theories it must defend against

4th 163, 182, the California Supreme Court emphasized that a UCL claim must identify an independent unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent act or practice

Rather, a plaintiff must identify specific conduct that constitutes an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice

CODE § 17204) Even if the UCL Claim were not deficient as a derivative pleading, it must be dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue it

) This standing requirement has two components: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" — that is, an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized; and (2) the plaintiff must have "lost money or property" — that is, she must have been deprived of money or property to which she had a cognizable claim, or must have parted with money or property in reliance on the defendant's unfair practices

To satisfy the standing requirements of section 17204, a plaintiff must do more than merely recite the statutory language of the UCL standing provision