to injunctive relief."). Courts have also deemed claims under the UCL subject to preemption by federal statutes. Cleghorn, 408 F.3d at 1227 (dismissing state law claims, including those arising under the UCL, as ERISA-preempted); see also In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litig., 309 F.Supp.2d 165, 177 (D.Mass.2004) ("Accordingly, I conclude that the California UCL is preempted under ERISA to the extent it seeks to give private attorneys general the right to stand in the shoes of ERISA fiduciaries in protecting or administering plan assets"); cf. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 231 F.3d 520, 529-30 (9th Cir.2000) (deeming claims arising under § 17200 preempted by FLSA); Scala v. Citicorp, Inc., No. C 10-03859 CRB, 2011 WL 900297, *7 n. 7 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 15, 2011) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ assertion that their unjust
holding that a similar motion to strike under california state law applies in federal court holding that a state securities claim which alleged federal mail wire and securities violations as the predicate acts did not arise under federal law and thus did not create federal jurisdiction holding that erisa preemption is an affirmative defense where erisas preemptive effect would result only in a change of the applicable law and would not subject the claim to exclusive federal jurisdiction holding merck applies to section 13 of the securities act holding that federal securities litigation uniform standards act of 1998s preemptive effect applies equally to plaintiffs claim based on  17200 and 17203 of the california business and professional code