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      

« Ninth Circuit opinion on no-class-action arbitration clauses: Hoffman v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. | Main | Supreme Court grants review in class certification case: Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) »

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e2010535a24226970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New class action settlement decision: Cundiff v. Verizon California, Inc.:

Comments

Minor Issue

If settlement checks were sent to class members who made a claim, but were returned or never cashed, wouldn't CCP 1500, et seq. come into play and the funds escheat to the State? Thus, only remaining funds for which claims were never made is subject to section 384.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

It sounds like no one made that precise argument. However, on page 12 of the opinion, the court describes "escheat to the government" as one of "several methods of fluid recovery" authorized by the Supreme Court in the Levi Strauss case. Under Levi Strauss, the trial court has discretion to select the most appropriate method of distribution.

Also, it may be that section 384, as the more specific statute, would take precedence over an escheat statute of general application. The Court of Appeal cited that principle of statutory interpretation when holding (slip op. at 14) that the plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment to permit the residual fund to be distributed to charity was not untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The court noted that secgtion 384 "does not include any time limit within which relief must be sought" and, as the more specific statute, "takes precedence" over section 473.

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