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      

« The Daily Journal reports | Main | S.B. 376 - UCL's public prosecutor provisions amended »

Monday, July 02, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200e0098ae4848833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Two more new UCL decisions: Akkerman v. Mecta Corp. and Benson v. Kwikset Corp.:

Comments

rb

In the Akkerman case there is a very brief discussion of injunctive relief under the UCL without the need for class certification. Any thoughts on that?

Kimberly A. Kralowec

You're talking about the "superiority" analysis on page 9 of the opinion. That part of the opinion could mean a couple of things:

(1) Injunctive relief may be obtained post-Prop. 64 without formal class certification.

(2) The court forgot to analyze the impact of Prop. 64 on the "superiority" prong (and also possibly overlooked Fireside Bank, which overruled the part of Frieman on which the Akkerman court relied; see this blog post for more).

Other ideas?

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