Critics contend there's no language in materials promoting the ballot measure or the bill itself indicating that Proposition 64 regulations were to be applied to pending cases.
"The general rule is new legislation applies prospectively only unless there is a clear indication (otherwise)," said Kimberly Kralowec of San Francisco's Furth Firm. "The ballot materials, the summary of the amendment itself, the ballot arguments ... there's nothing in there [indicating] that anyone wanted it to apply to [pending] cases."
Kralowec, who represents plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits, has a blog devoted to the ongoing debate. She argues the bill contains "prospective-type language" and has been touted as a way to stop attorneys from filing future cases.
Pamela Parker, an attorney for the San Diego office of class-action giant Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, agrees. "It all comes down to voter intent and there's no evidence whatsoever that the voters intended to terminate existing UCL litigation," she said. "The focus was frivolous lawsuits, which constitutes a regrettable but small portion of UCL litigation. They thought they were doing something to help curtail that in the future."