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

October 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  

« "A Blog of Their Own" | Main | New UCL "injury in fact"/injunctive relief decision: Daro v. Superior Court »

Monday, June 18, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200e009803b6d8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New federal UCL/CLRA decision: Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co.:

Comments

Seth Safier

As one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff in this matter, we were, of course, very disappointed with Judge Conti's order. We believe that his decision was incorrect as a matter of fact and law. We intend to appeal.

Steve

It appears that the court did not see any harm to the plaintiff resulting from the misrepresentation. Did the plaintiff allege that bottling standards in New Mexico were unsafe causing a health hazard as opposed to clean facilities in California? Is the water in New Mexico polluted and the California water pure? Did the plaintiff get sick drinking a beverage bottled in New Mexico? How would the plaintiff's choice of the beverage be affected by production in California as opposed to New Mexico?

Even before prop 64 plaintiffs had to show some real or potential harm resulting from the alleged unfairly competitive act, even if the representative plaintiff did not personally suffer that harm.

I cannot judge this particular case because I do not know all the facts. However, Prop. 64 passed because the public believed that many class actions were frivolous and benefitted only the lawyers. The corporate interests based their campaign for Prop. 64 on reports of such cases to get this bad law passed.

As "UCL practitioners" I think we need to be very careful about the cases we file in order to avoid further restrictions on the important UCL remedies, and, as a practical matter, to avoid investing in unwinnable cases.

Safier

I am happy to report that Judge Conti's decision was reversed.

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