CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec LLP
    Three Embarcadero Center,
    Suite 1650
    San Francisco, CA 94111
    Telephone: (415) 788-4220
    Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

July 2009

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  

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
    © 2003-2009
    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

« More breaking news (off-topic): Supreme Court issues order to show cause in Prop. 8 cases | Main | Section 1021.5 does not require a prelitigation demand in non-catalyst cases: Vasquez v. State of California »

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Supreme Court grants review in UCL/antitrust case: Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review in Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., no. S166435. In Clayworth, the Court of Appeal held that the "pass-on" defense applied to a price-fixing case brought by intermediate purchasers under California's Cartwright Act, and also that if the plaintiffs have passed on the entirety of their losses, they can no longer recover restitution under the UCL. Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 (2008) (review granted). See this blog post for more on Clayworth.

In addition, the Supreme Court denied review in Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood, no. S167170. In Medrazo, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) reversed an order denying class certification of UCL and CLRA claims predicated on the defendant's violation of certain Vehicle Code provisions. Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood, 166 Cal.App.4th 89 (2008). See this blog post for more on Medrazo.

Finally, the Supreme Court will be handing down its decision this morning at 10:00 a.m. in the Vasquez attorneys' fees case. When it does, the opinion will be available at this link. Time permitting, I will post a summary of the holding later today.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e2010536029eb4970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court grants review in UCL/antitrust case: Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.:

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

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.

Working...

Post a comment

Research


California Law Blogs