Last Friday, a petition for review was filed in Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Nov. 30, 2005), in which I (unsuccessfully) argued Prop. 64 retroactivity before the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division One). Here is a link to the docket. On December 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal denied our petition for rehearing and modified the opinion to add the following language: "Finally, we deny Turner’s request to order the trial court to allow him to seek leave to amend his complaint to substitute a new plaintiff to satisfy the requirements of Proposition 64. Such a procedure would be inconsistent with the evident intent of the proposition to discourage persons who have not suffered actual injury from initiating litigation for violations of the UCL." Only a handful of the Prop. 64 appellate opinions prohibit the plaintiff from even attempting to seek leave to amend. For instance, the unpublished opinion in Dunham v. Memberworks (First Appellate District, Division Five) (Dec. 29, 2005) specifically held that the trial court has discretion to permit amendment to substitute affected parties. This issue is, of course, already before the Supreme Court in Branick.