CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    180 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« More Mervyn's amicus briefs | Main | New Prop. 64 retroactivity decision: Schwartz v. Visa Int'l Service Assn. »

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d83458fdba53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Recent federal order on the UCL post-Prop. 64: Aureflam v. Pho Hoa Phat:

Comments

mary

Kimberly, Excuse me for only having read your summary, but do I understand that an individual plaintiff, not seeking class-wide relief, was also required to satisfy 382? If so, does this mean, UCL is only for class-actions; did I miss something?

mary

Kimberly, Excuse me for only having read your summary, but do I understand that an individual plaintiff, not seeking class-wide relief, was also required to satisfy 382? If so, does this mean, UCL is only for class-actions; did I miss something?

mary

oops, it looks like i failed to click through and read your last paragraph, which addresses my exact question. sorry

amendment is good law

Kimberly: Not odd, not an implicit assumption, § 17204 as amended states exactly what the court said.

Your opinion: "But what's odd about it is the implicit assumption that a UCL claimant seeking injunctive relief only would have to establish an actual injury."

Excerpt from Schwartz v. Visa Int'l Service Assn. filed Sept. 28 - Court's Discussion:

As amended by Proposition 64, the UCL now authorizes the filing of an injunctive or restitutionary relief action only by certain public prosecutors and by “any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.” (§ 17204.) In addition, the UCL now authorizes a person to pursue a representative action only if he or she meets the class certification requirements of section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (§ 17203.)
----
Quite explicit since injunctive and/or restitutionary relief are the remedies authorized under § 17203 in actions brought by one other than certain public prosecutors.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

Yes, I say it's odd, and not an "implicit assumption." The stated purpose of Prop. 64 is to bring the UCL's standing requirements in line with Article III standing requirements. Never in hundreds of years of jurisprudence has "actual injury" been a prerequisite to an injunctive relief claim. As for Schwartz, its comments on this topic are dicta.

amendment is good law

Your comments overlook two critical points:

1. California's B & P 17200 action is purely a creature of statute, i.e., in jurisprudence an appropriate action for injunctive relief remains readily available to a real party(ies) in interest; and

2. The language of the law, B & P 17204, as amended, brings standing limitations to this creature of statute. Schwartz is merely a restatement of law enacted.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2014 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2014
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad