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

January 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

« Ninth Circuit denies en banc rehearing in CAFA "less is more" case: Amalgamated v. Laidlaw | Main | Will the Mervyn's/Branick argument be webcast? »

Thursday, May 25, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d834db89dd53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New UCL "fraudulent" prong decision: People ex rel. DMV v. Cars for Causes:

Comments

Stephen Dolle

I don't believe Proposition 64 should have included stricter standards on causes of action for "fraudulent conduct." It tends to empower more brazen and harmful conduct by those who hold a distinct advantage. The earlier standard worked reasonably well in cases alleging fraud. It would seem the Appellate Court feels similarly.

The comments to this entry are closed.

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