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      

« Verdict in rare Unfair Practices Act case | Main | New UCL "fraudulent" prong decision: Buller v. Sutter Health »

Friday, March 07, 2008


John Waid

One update. The plaintiff did sue the defendant under the UCL, but the defendants cross-claimed against the State Board of Equalization for a refund of tax. The parties stipulated to try the tax issue as a separate issue. The trial was thus solely on whether or not the defendants should prevail on their cross-complaint against the Board. After all, if the court agreed with the Board, the case was over. As it happened, the court did not agree. The trial court reserved jurisdiction over the issue of whether or not the UCL can be used to adjudicate tax disputes.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

Thanks for the clarification!

The comments to this entry are closed.

2023 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