CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    44 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 1210
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

August 2015

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          

« "Jury's Wal-Mart Whammy Jolts State Labor Law" | Main | Petition for review filed in Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Superior Court »

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Comments

John Hurley

Interesting. The court seems to duck some of the hard and unresolved issues about what factual circumstances can support an award of restitution by focusing on evidentiary issues.

But one thing the court did do was that it duscussed the restitution remedies under the CLRA and UCL as one -- implying that there is no difference between the scope of restitution available under the UCL as opposed to under common law or other statutory causes of action.

Kimberly

I noticed that and thought it was interesting. The Court also said that CLRA "damages" can and should be calculated differently from UCL "restitution," and that the two forms of relief could be awarded in such a way as to avoid any inconsistency. (Slip op. at 33-34.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

2015 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
    © 2003-2015
    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