• Kimberly A. Kralowec
    Kralowec Law, P.C.
    750 Battery St., Suite 700
    San Francisco, CA 94111
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801

September 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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

« Depublication requests denied: Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc. | Main | UCL preemption decision to be handed down Monday: Viva! v. Adidas »

Friday, July 20, 2007



The Akkerman v. Mecta Corp. (probably a case you should explore more on the site) is authority that may make this practice more difficult. The court upheld the trial courts decision not to certify a UCL restitution class action in part because it was inefficient -- individual actions would still be necessary needed for recovery of damages.

But there is also interesting bit in that section of the decision that cites pre Prop 64 jurisprudence for the proposition that an individual can still use the UCL to get an injunction on behalf of the general public.

Also, the discussion of predominance of individual issues implicitly holds that reliance is an element of a UCL cause of action, or at least that it is a factor to be considered in determining whether an individual class member is entitled to restitution.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2018 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
    © 2003-2018
    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