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

July 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 31  

« Reminder: Law blogging webinar tomorrow | Main | Thanks for tuning in! »

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Comments

JH

This is an interesting issue, and I'm not aware of any other cases that directly address it. I do think that although this case holds that an "unlawful" violation can be based on out-of-state law, the circumstances where that could happen may be limited. For example, if the conduct at issue would be illegal under Florida law but occurred entirely in California and had no impact in Florida, I would think that a court would not allow an "unlawful" claim to be asserted with Florida law as a predicate.

But in this particular case, where the defendant was a Delaware corporation that allegedly violated Delaware corporate law in a way that had an effect in Claifornia, basing an "unlawful" claim on the conduct does not seem that anomalous. But I'm not sure that the holding would necessarily apply to other factual situations.

It's worth noting that the discussion of remedies in Process Specialties v. Sematech is outdated, but that should have no impact on its "unlawful" holding.

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