Last Wednesday, July 11, 2007, the Supreme Court denied the multiple requests to depublish Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th 1440 (2007) (one of which was filed by yours truly).
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
About
June 2013
Categories
- Appellate practice
- Attorneys’ fees (CCP §1021.5)
- Class Action "Fairness" Act
- Class actions - arbitration
- Class actions - certification
- Class actions - choice of law
- Class actions - discovery
- Class actions - general
- Class actions - settlements
- Class actions - Supreme Court
- General
- Law blogging
- MCLE programs
- News reports and practice articles
- Prop. 64 - appellate briefs
- Prop. 64 - appellate decisions
- Prop. 64 - general
- Prop. 64 - injury in fact
- Prop. 64 - oral arguments
- Prop. 64 - pending appeals
- Prop. 64 - Supreme Court
- Prop. 64 - trial court orders
- Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec LLP
- Supreme Court and Court of Appeal arguments
- The CLRA
- The Furth Firm LLP
- UCL - "fraudulent" prong
- UCL - "unfair" prong
- UCL - "unlawful" prong
- UCL - arbitration
- UCL - class certification
- UCL - competitor actions
- UCL - federal decisions
- UCL - injunctive relief
- UCL - legislative activity
- UCL - preemption
- UCL - public prosecutor actions
- UCL - remedies in general
- UCL - restitution
- UCL - Supreme Court
ARCHIVES
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- Main Archives Page
« "Appeal Courts Are Publishing More Cases" | Main | "Consumer Class Actions Usurping Personal Injury Claims" »
Thursday, July 19, 2007
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200e008da2ac58834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Depublication requests denied: Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc.:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
The UCL
Class Actions
The CLRA
Brinker Links
- Plaintiffs' counsel in Brinker receive CLAY Awards (March 2013)
- Supreme Court depublishes third post-Brinker opinion (January 2013)
- Supreme Court depublishes post-Brinker opinions (December 2012)
- "Brinker v. Superior Court: Takeaways for California Workers" by Kimberly Kralowec (July 2012)
- Opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012)
- Docket in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
- Briefs in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
- Oral argument in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Nov. 8, 2011)
California Appellate Practice Links
- Cal. Rules of Court, Title Eight (Appellate Rules)
- New Appellate Opinions
- 2013 Supreme Court Conference Calendar
- Supreme Court Notices of Forthcoming Filings
- Supreme Court Notices of Oral Argument
- Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures
- Map of California Appellate Districts
- Successful Depublication Requests
- California Supreme Court Watch (Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP)
- California Appellate Courts Case Information
LAW BLOG DIRECTORIES
- Alltop.com law page
- Blawg Directory (ABA Journal)
- Blawg Directory: California (ABA Journal)
- Blawg Republic
- Blawg Search (Justia)
- Blawg.org
- Blogged.com Law Blog Directory
- Blogs & Podcasts (FindLaw)
- Law Professor Blogs (Professor Paul L. Caron)
- LawLink Blog Directory
- LexMonitor
- myHq blawgs (Blawg Review)
- Taxonomy of Legal Blogs (Ian Best)
- The Law List (Kevin O'Keefe)
- USLaw Blog Directory
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
© 2003-2013
by Kimberly A. Kralowec
All rights reserved.
Header design by Webmotion
Photos by Jack Gescheidt
Powered by TypePad
Follow @uclpractitioner
So does this now mean that you CAN use predominant individualized affirmative defenses to defeat class cert?
Posted by: tommyk | Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Of course not. Not even the Walsh court (trial or appellate) interpreted the law that way. That's the whole point; the sentence about affirmative defenses presents a misleading impression about what the law is, especially if taken out of context. Moreover, as I'm sure you are well aware as an experienced attorney, summary denials by the Supreme Court have no precedential value and may not be cited as suggesting anything one way or another about the merits of the issues raised.
Posted by: Kimberly A. Kralowec | Friday, July 20, 2007 at 09:57 AM