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

December 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 31      

« "With Tobacco Case, a Side of Prop 64" | Main | "Appeal can go forward in suit against Mervyn's" »

Friday, April 20, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d83451d8a569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Preliminary thoughts on Fireside Bank:

Comments

rb

The injunctive/declaratory relief thing is huge news, if true.

Joe Ruby

Not being a California practioner, perhaps I'm missing something. But how can you conclude that she hasn't "suffered injury in fact and lost money or property"? They took the car, didn't they? Didn't she have legal title to the car? And how can your square your conclusion that a plaintiff doesn't need to show injury-in-fact/lost-money-or-property in order to maintain an injunction claim, when that's what section 17204 says the plaintiff must show? The court may be saying that you don't need a restitution claim in order to seek an injunction, but you still need an injury-in-fact/lost money-or-property. Perhaps I don't get it, but I'd like to know why.

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