• Enter your email address:

August 2021

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        

« "With Tobacco Case, a Side of Prop 64" | Main | "Appeal can go forward in suit against Mervyn's" »

Friday, April 20, 2007



The injunctive/declaratory relief thing is huge news, if true.

Joe Ruby

Not being a California practioner, perhaps I'm missing something. But how can you conclude that she hasn't "suffered injury in fact and lost money or property"? They took the car, didn't they? Didn't she have legal title to the car? And how can your square your conclusion that a plaintiff doesn't need to show injury-in-fact/lost-money-or-property in order to maintain an injunction claim, when that's what section 17204 says the plaintiff must show? The court may be saying that you don't need a restitution claim in order to seek an injunction, but you still need an injury-in-fact/lost money-or-property. Perhaps I don't get it, but I'd like to know why.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2022 Supreme Court Calendar



  • 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