CONTACT ME

January 2024

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      

« Supreme Court decides pre-certification communication case: Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court | Main | Media coverage of Pioneer Electronics »

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Comments

Anon

Do you think the holding is limited to cases involving precertification and/or class action cases? It appears that the Court wanted to limit the holding to class action cases from the way it framed the issues:

“[w]e consider here the extent to which California’s right to privacy provision (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1) protects these purchasers from having their identifying information disclosed to the plaintiff during civil discovery proceedings in a consumers’ rights class action against the seller”; and also the language in the discusion section: “[d]oes a complaining purchaser possess a right to privacy protecting him or her from unsolicited contact by a class action plaintiff seeking relief from the vendor to whom the purchaser’s complaint was sent?”

I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

Thanks!

The comments to this entry are closed.

2023 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2022
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.



  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad


  • StatCounter