CONTACT ME

January 2025

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  

« Pfizer v. Superior Court (Galfano) to be argued this morning | Main | New opinion addresses responsibility of class counsel post-judgment: Barboza v. West Coast Digital GSM, Inc. »

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Comments

Andrew Sussman

One solution to this problem = amend CCP Sec. 1021.5 to permit a defendant's recovery of fees in UCL cases, like those permitted by CC Sec. 1780(e) for CLRA cases prosecuted in bad faith.

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