CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    188 The Embarcadero,
    Suite 800
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

April 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      

« "Lawyers Face Right to Blog" | Main | Court of Appeal grants motion to dismiss in Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's »

Monday, November 13, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d834c5304a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New UCL "unlawful" prong decision: SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Canyon View Estates, Inc.:

Comments

ron

Are there citations to the liabilities not remedies doctrine? It's important and I did not know that. I sometimes sue under both the 17200 and consumer acts containing attorney's fee provisions available to either party (in the case of bad faith). Seems like that might be unwise, although since a finding of public interest is required for 17200, it seems both may be necessary. Would a court infer public interest if a consumer protection statute is borrowed in a 17200 case?

Kimberly A. Kralowec

I can't provide a citation to a specific case that says that explicitly. However, the conclusion is compelled by myriad cases that say that UCL remedies are limited to restitution and injunctive relief, coupled with the myriad cases that state that the UCL's "unlawful" prong may "borrow" any other law, including those for which a private right of action is available. Plaintiffs often "borrow" laws with attorneys' fees clauses, for example, but that part of the law is not also "borrowed." The only area of practice that I'm aware of in which part of the remedy might be "borrowed" is in the context of penalty provisions.

In answer to your question, if you are seeking fees under the private attorney general doctrine of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, then I don't see why the court would analyze the public interest question differently if the complaint alleged a UCL claim but not a direct statutory claim. Perhaps the court might be more likely to find the public interest element satisfied if the underlying statute has an explicit consumer protection purpose.

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