Respondent manufacturer filed an action against appellant board of medical examiners seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The board challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which ruled that the manufacturer had the right to sell corrective shoes without obtaining a certificate from the board and enjoined the board from interfering with the manufacturer's right.
 
The manufacturer was in the business of fitting and selling shoes. He recommended and sold corrective shoes and appliances. He claimed that the board filed a complaint with the city's attorney charging him with violation Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2141. Section 2141 provided that persons treating or diagnosing sick or afflicted persons without a certificate were guilty of a misdemeanor. The trial court enjoined the board from interfering with the manufacturer's right to sell corrective shoes. The California class action lawyers affirmed and held that the manufacturer's evidence supported the trial court's finding that pointing out a manifest abnormality in a customer's feet did not amount to a diagnosis. The injunction went no farther than to preserve the manufacturer's right to carry on his business under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2148. It did not restrain appellant from enforcing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2141.
 
The court affirmed the order enjoining the board from interfering with the manufacturer's right to sell corrective shoes without obtaining a certificate.
 
Petitioner bank filed a petition for a writ of mandate to set aside two orders by respondent Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California) in which summary judgment was granted to real party in interest insurers in a dispute over the terms in an insurance policy issued to petitioner by real parties in interest.
 
Petitioner bank sought a writ of mandate to set aside two prior orders by respondent superior court in claims against either petitioner or its predecessor. Petitioner was alleged to have engaged in unfair competition in the first case in its financing of insurance premiums. In the second case, plaintiffs below alleged that petitioner facilitated a third party's fraud against plaintiffs. During this time, petitioner was covered by a comprehensive general liability policy issued by real party in interest insurers. Petitioner sought defense and indemnity in the two cases, alleging that the policy's coverage included acts of unfair competition. The superior court granted summary judgment to real parties in interest in both cases. On appeal, the court held that "unfair competition" in the policy included the broader definition of that term as stated in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, thereby covering petitioner's conduct in the first case. The court held that any ambiguity had to be construed against real parties in interest and issued a preemptory writ of mandate to set aside the summary adjudication order. The second case was moot because petitioner had dismissed its claim therein.
 
The court issued a preemptory writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to vacate the summary adjudication order rendered in one case and to enter in its place another order denying said motion. The "unfair competition" provision in the insurance policy issued to petitioner by real party in interest insurers provided coverage for a claim filed against petitioner in that case. The other case for which a writ was sought was declared moot.