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          

« Supreme Court decides pre-certification communication case: Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court | Main | Media coverage of Pioneer Electronics »

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Comments

Anon

Do you think the holding is limited to cases involving precertification and/or class action cases? It appears that the Court wanted to limit the holding to class action cases from the way it framed the issues:

“[w]e consider here the extent to which California’s right to privacy provision (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1) protects these purchasers from having their identifying information disclosed to the plaintiff during civil discovery proceedings in a consumers’ rights class action against the seller”; and also the language in the discusion section: “[d]oes a complaining purchaser possess a right to privacy protecting him or her from unsolicited contact by a class action plaintiff seeking relief from the vendor to whom the purchaser’s complaint was sent?”

I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

Thanks!

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