Is a violation of FLSA a proper predicate under UCL 17200?

Yes, it could be. California Business & Professions Code §17200, what is commonly referred to as the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) “prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. By proscribing “any unlawful business practice,” §17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable. To state a claim under §17200, plaintiff must at a minimum properly allege an act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by law or tethered to some express public policy. (Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1382-1383. ) Under California Unfair Business Practices Act, a plaintiff can request “the disgorgement of money that has been wrongfully obtained or, in the language of the statute, an order ‘restor[ing] … money … which may have been acquired by means of … unfair competition.’” (Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1266.) While restitution is an available remedy under the UCL, disgorgement of money obtained through an unfair business practice is an available remedy only to the extent that it constitutes restitution. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1143 [reaffirming the holding of Kraus v. Trinity Management Servs. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116 in the context of an individual action]. Under the UCL, “restitution means the return of money to those persons from whom it was taken or who had an ownership interest in it.” (Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 440, 455, citing Korea Supply, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 1144–1145.) The object is to return to the plaintiff funds in which he or she has an ownership interest. “[A]n action under the UCL is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract action. . . . Instead, the act provides an equitable means through which both public prosecutors and private individuals can bring suit to prevent unfair business practices and restore money or property to victims of these practices. . . . [T]he overarching legislative concern [was] to provide a streamlined procedure for the prevention of ongoing or threatened acts of unfair competition. . . . Because of this objective, the remedies provided are limited. While any member of the public can bring suit under the act to enjoin a business from engaging in unfair competition, it is well established that individuals may not recover damages.” (Korea Supply, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 1150.)