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

June 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        

« New Ninth Circuit CAFA decision: Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc. | Main | New Sixth Circuit class action objector opinion: In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation »

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Comments

TommyK

That's a bit of a tickytack distinction, no? The purpose of Prop 64 was to prevent people who had no stake in an action from holding up companies for ransom. If a lawfirm is going around suing large companies without having a class member with a legitimate grievance against the company, but is doing so for the purpose of getting access to all the employees' names and addresses to mine for class representatives, that seems similar in spirit to the Trevor Law Group. The mere fact that they put "class action" on their complaint doesn't seem to change the policy rationale.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

I'm not saying the outcome of the case should have been different. I'm saying the reasoning of that paragraph is flawed and that the Court could have reached the same conclusion without including that paragraph.

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