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    

« New UCL decision: Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse | Main | Petitions for review filed in Bennett and Fireside Bank »

Monday, December 12, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d83464b38053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Recent federal Prop. 64 order: Anunziato v. eMachines, Inc.:

Comments

John Hurley

This is an interesting decision. And I think it ultimately ends up in the wrong place. One of the “Findings and Declarations of Purpose” of Proposition 64 was that plaintiffs should at least have Article III standing, and there are a number of federal cases in Claifornia holding that a plaintiff who was not personally misled lacks standing to assert fraud-based claims. For example, Mortera v. North America Mortg. Co., 172 F.Supp.2d 1240, 1243 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

I think the right result lies in a middle ground that a lot of courts are missing, and that parties (on both sides) are not arguing because it doesn't necessarily serve their clients. That is, the "as a result of" language in Section 17204 may have added an "actual" reliance element, but unlike common-law fraud, may not include a "reasonable" reliance element.

Also, at least in the case when an individual is seeking relief on his/her own behalf, the caselaw applying a reasonable-person standard to alleged fraudulent business practices may not apply. Those cases were decied in the context of general-public claims. A person who individually demonstrates actual reliance, even if that reliance was not necessarily reasonbable, would appear to meet all the requirements to assert a claim for "fraudulent" business practices under the amended statute.

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