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

June 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        

« Two new opinions on class settlement objections: Consumer Privacy Cases and Clark v. American Residential Services LLC | Main | U.S. Supreme Court takes up CAFA case: Hertz v. Friend »

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Comments

Andrew Sussman

Of particular interest is that Kearns affirmed the dismissal of UCL and CLRA claims that were "grounded in fraud" even though they also had pled alternative, non-fraud grounds (e.g. UCL unfairness) for relief.

What is now clear is that in federal court any fraud-based claim must be pled, separately and with FRCP 9(b) specificity, against each of multiple defendants -- regardless of the claim's formal cause of action or basis.

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